BS: No poppies for me

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:00 PM

Realms of plausibility...

.. and we've yet not even touched on the possibilities of undocumented isolated cases of mercy killings of our own soldiers;
and desperate measures under extreme duress to silence loud hysterical panicking young soldiers...???

.. might never have happened... then again, might have....?????

..and it's such gaps of hard evidence, allowing room for plausible speculative scenarios that arouse interest from creative artists
fascinated by human nature and psychology under the worst nightmare conditions..

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 16 - 01:39 PM

.. and we've yet not even touched on the possibilities of undocumented isolated cases of mercy killings of our own soldiers;
and desperate measures under extreme duress to silence loud hysterical panicking young soldiers...???

You will find such incidents referred to in many accounts including the memoirs of Sassoon and Graves who were both very critical of the war.
Graves also speaks of prisoners being murdered and it being treated as a joke.

Summary executions I have never come across in any accounts.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 02:53 AM

Raggytash - 19 Nov 16 - 12:01 PM

Strange that you missed out the pertinent line in your response Tery.

The line that stated "we were all run up for mutiny"

Why strange Raggy? How or why was that line either relevant or important with regard to the point being made? I take it that you do know the meaning of the phrase "being run up" for something Raggy? It means being marched in at the double {Hence the "run" part of it} and charged with something as a defaulter. And as you no doubt know it is one thing to be charged with something, and something completely different to be found guilty as charged. Tell me Raggy did Harry Patch say that he was found guilty or did he say that the investigating Officer found in favour of the men and that the Officer who had drawn and cocked his weapon was moved out of the unit?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 03:11 AM

punkfolkrocker - 19 Nov 16 - 01:00 PM

This discussion is all about a very specific accusation made by members of this forum that it was common practice, sanctioned by those commanding the British, Commonwealth & Empire forces during the First World War, that summary executions were carried out. Again pfr please note that the contention was that these executions WERE carried out, no "maybe", no "might have been", no "could possibly have happened". Keth A of Hertford, myself and others in previous threads on the subject of the First World War challenged that definite statement that any such summary executions occurred in the British Army with result that to date not one single example of such an execution has been put forward by those levelling the accusation that they did.

We are dealing with the actual history of the period and of the events. I am not interested in wild speculation, which under no circumstance can ever replace hard fact. Historians are NOT creative artists and if I were studying a period in history and wanted to know the reality of that period the works I would go to would be those written by Historians who specialised in the various aspects of that period {Social, Political, Economic, Military} I would not refer to a speculative creative artist for any information upon which to base any argument about the period in question.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 12:02 PM

"This discussion is all about a very specific accusation made by members of this forum.. no "maybe", no "might have been", no "could possibly have happened"...
I am not interested in wild speculation, which under no circumstance can ever replace hard fact.. etc...etc.."

As a 'creative artist' I tend to try to avoid dead end dogma and certainty..

But in this instance I can confidently pronounce that you are absolutely wrong...

This thread is actually about 'POPPIES' !!!

The discussion that you refer to is the one that resides festering inside your egotistical obsessive head...

The FACT is that you have taken over this thread to rehash your old obsessions and boring fights with Jim and others.. yet again...


So by the same informal 'rules' of thread drift..
if I want to speculate and salvage some interest from this dreary thread takeover,
I and anyone else can try to introduce what ever new elements of questioning to kick start this exhausted debate we feel like...


YOU did not start this thread.. YOU do not OWN it..

and YOU certainly do not get to DICTATE what other mudcatters want to talk about..

Fair enough really if you occasionally stop to consider other people's views and ideas... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 12:55 PM

If you look back, you will see that it was not Teribus who rehashed the old arguments with provocative, argumentative statements and coat trailing that had no place in the original discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

btw.. one of my best mates of over 40 years is a serious respected historian and an imaginative creative artist...
now he is a genuinely interesting and engaging writer....

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:08 PM

yeah Kieth... who started what gets a bit silly from one thread to another as time drags trudging to the same old petty thread hopping arguments...

.. and the folks Teribus refers to as my 'pals' are not blameless...

At least Jim is aware enough to eventually realise when he has lapsed and mired in endless tit for tat.. and he is man enough to openly apologise..

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:22 PM

Trust you to deliberately seek to misunderstand yet again.

I was referring to the discussion WITHIN THIS THREAD that has arisen about the claim that summary executions were ordered, permitted and carried out by the British Army during the First World War - if it is wrong for me to discuss that then it was equally wrong for you to witter on about "undocumented isolated cases of mercy killings" as far of the realms of probability go. Others on this forum who you obviously side with on this issue made deliberate and definite statements that summary executions DID TAKE PLACE - that was the point that was challenged and to date after over two years they have been unable to provide any substantive evidence that backs their accusations.

"As a 'creative artist' {I'll take your word for that} I tend to try to avoid dead end dogma and certainty

In which case steer clear of any factual historical debate or discussion because fictional flights of fancy and dramatic, creative speculation will not overcome or supplant proven and documented historical fact.

NO-ONE OWNS the thread pfr, and no-one can direct what is posted to it, not even you. "Poppies" by the way are inexorably linked to the First World War, the Royal British Legion and Earl Haig. Originally the idea of an American University Professor Moina Michael, adopted, taken up and brought to London by a Frenchwoman Anna E. Guerin then adopted by Field Marshal Haig who was founder of the Royal British Legion.

"In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the poppies typically have two red paper petals mounted on a green plastic stem with a single green paper leaf and a prominent black plastic central boss. The stem has an additional branch used to anchor the poppy via a pin in the lapel or buttonhole.

In Scotland, the poppies are curled and have four petals with no leaf. The yearly selling of poppies is a major source of income for the RBL in the UK. The poppy has no fixed price; it is sold for a donation or the price may be suggested by the seller. The black plastic center of the poppy was marked "Haig Fund" until 1994 but is now marked "Poppy Appeal".

A team of about 50 people—most of them disabled former British military personnel—work all year round to make millions of poppies at the Poppy Factory in Richmond. Scottish poppies are made in the Lady Haig's Poppy Factory in Edinburgh.

Now I could not care less whether or not you or your pals wear "poppies" or not, I am not in the least bit interested. But if for one second you, or your pals think that scurrilous accusations can be levelled against those who can no longer defend their names and reputations without challenge then I'd advise you to think again.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:27 PM

Humph. Well I started this thread but I cheerfully confess to not owning it. Hope you're listening, Keith, to your mate Teribus. When things get tough for you in "your" threads, Keith, you try to force us away from thread drift. What yuh gotta say, now, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 01:43 PM

"Others on this forum who you obviously side with.....

nope.. I've never been much of a team player.

Taking 'sides' is an over simplistic concept I've never felt particularly shackled by....


Teribus - as I've commented on a previous thread.. god knows which or when....
If you were not such a hostile aggressively insulting egotist,
you would be a significant asset to the mudcat community.
However you persistently undermine all respect that might otherwise be accorded your expertise & knowledge...

You might be one of my favourite mudcatters, but not necessarily for all he right reasons..

I'm not a particularly 'nice' person either..
and your gratuitous nastiness , I must confess, does from time to time amuse the inner cruel bastard in me... 😈

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 03:47 PM

What nastiness pfr? In what way have I been nasty to you?

I tend to deal with others as they deal with me.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 05:08 PM

"I tend to deal with others as they deal with me."

Well would it be ok if we buried you six feet under, then you could do the same to us?


Silly bugger...

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 05:15 PM

QED pfr - does that explain my approach to Shaw?

By the way pfr ask Shaw who is the "we" he refers to - you might find that, as far as he is concerned, you are included.

On the subject of the summary execution MYTH that they have tried to perpetuate as in previous threads Shaw and the usual subjects have been comprehensively routed, they'll slink away until the next time and it will start all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 16 - 07:12 PM

"Shaw" has never been routed on the matter of summary executions because "Shaw" has never commented on summary executions, nor does "Shaw" either know about or take interest in summary executions, you clown. You're getting old, Woodcock, and your distemper is getting the better of you. There are wiser heads than yours hereabouts and they're hinting that you should just cool down a bit and embrace humanity. Take heed, old son!

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 02:06 AM

"There are wiser heads than yours hereabouts and they're hinting that you should just cool down a bit and embrace humanity. Take heed, old son!

Perhaps, as Iains says "In some rose tinted, treehugging, everyone is a sandal wearing teacher type world" of yours there is, but not so far on this forum. They most definitely have warned you and your pals about your conduct but so far they have never so much as whispered any such-like hint in my direction. It must infuriate you that the old "Let's get the thread closed down because we're getting hammered here" tactic no longer works Shaw.

Take heed, old son! Threats now Shaw? - every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 03:43 AM

Another live thread fucked up by an arrogant mental midget and his monkey - still talking down to people.
This really has been covered and sunk a dozen times elsewhere and is a couple of jingoists clinging onto a long-sunk life-raft.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:05 AM

But I haven't ever rattled on about "summary executions" as you alleged, have I, Bill old son?! 😂 You've lost it, mate!

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 04:21 AM

"every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled."
You really do totally lack imagination, don't you.
You've taken a description of your own arrogant behavior virtually word-for-word.
"I am seldom ever wrong" really tells you as you are
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 05:51 AM

Not specifically on this thread Shaw but you have on others in support of your pals more ludicrous claims.

"Another live thread fucked up by an arrogant mental midget and his monkey" - Oh Jom you shouldn't be that hard on yourself and Raggy.

"- still talking down to people." - I know you are Jom but don't worry over the years that you've been doing it we've all just sort of got used to it along with all your other tedious and wildly inaccurate, incoherent and incomprehensible rants on the many hobbie-horses you seem to gallop about on.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 06:45 AM

Lying Insults are not answers, Teribus -
Yoyu have not made your case, you have not provided any documented evidence to back up your claims
You have no case other than a rule book that proves nothing
Where did the Croake Park Massacre feature in your "army regulations, or Derry's Bloody Sunday, or the murder of Sheehy Skeffington.   
Were trials of 1916 carried out by the British Military, where the defendants were neither allowed to plead their case nor have legal representation, leading to the Easter Week leaders being executed, covered by the manual.
The fact the, a century after the event, the details of those trials are still secret, contrary to British laws of disclosure, in proof positive that all the rules and laws in the world mean sweet-fuck-all to an establishment which wants to cover up inconvenient facts.
The only reliable accounts of what actually happened-come from those who were there - you can't have a more reliable source than the boasting confession of an officer who carried out those some of those summary executions      
Stop being a braindead - you have not made a shred of a case to your jingoistic crap
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 06:47 AM

By the way
""every time you mention the name Woodcock I know I've got through to you and you are getting rattled."
"Oh Jom "
Haven't even got the nouse to see a contradiction when you make one within a couple of postings
Sheeeesh!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 09:43 AM

Not on any thread, Teribus. I seem to remember you crowing about how you instantly apologise when you make a mistake. Not so, sadly, it seems. You're indulging in pig-headed Keithery again.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 10:16 AM

You're indulging in pig-headed Keithery again.

Seems only fair, as The Professor regularly indulges in pig-headed Teribussery.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 10:19 AM

"Not so, sadly, it seems."
Fair's fair - he was forced into apologising once and had has drawn attention to that lone apology several times 'Lest We Forget" - as they say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 12:20 PM

Jim, Steve, Greg - for fuck's sake, don't feed the troll(s)!.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 01:52 PM

Point taken BW - think they've been fully tranquilised
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 02:01 PM

👍😎

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 06:43 PM

Jim Carroll - 21 Nov 16 - 06:45 AM

Yet another standard Carroll tactic demonstrated - deflection - he'll be on about the "Famine" next.

Not biting - As far as Summary Executions go, you know full well that on this thread you have been hammered just as you were on all the other previous threads where it has been brought up - Come up with the name of just one victim, when and where he was summarily executed and by whom. If you cannot do that then FFS desist from saying that it happened. Or maybe we'll have Musket wittering on about REDTOPS again.

So far we have Jim Carroll saying that Tommy Kenny knew absolutely nothing about any such summary executions.

The transcription of Harry Patch's wartime experiences clearly stating that he never witnessed any such summary execution.

The memoirs of Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier detailing in great detail that the one and only execution that he was involved with during the entire course of the First World War was as far as possible from being a summary execution as one could get.

Quiz Carroll on any source he gives and on examination it normally shows the opposite of the point Carroll is trying to make.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 16 - 07:47 PM

"So far we have Jim Carroll saying that Tommy Kenny knew absolutely nothing about any such summary executions."

Never mind Tommy Kenny. Steve Shaw knows absolutely nothing about summary executions either, despite your scurrilous allegations against me to that effect in two posts so far in this thread. Jim's right about you, isn't he, Bill. You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it. Well I'm not having that if you don't mind. I wasn't having it with Keith and his crass stupidity over Wheatcroft and I'm not having it with you with regard to that remark. Either you do the honourable thing or you'll never hear the end of it.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 02:19 AM

You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it.

Coming from someone who has thrown out baseless accusations like confetti and who has then proudly stated that you have no need or intention to substantiate them that is a bit rich.

In ALL threads where the subject of the First World War has been raised you have slavishly supported everything your "pals" have trotted out, irrespective of how idiotic, untrue and misrepresentative their claims have been - all part of the "piss take" if memory serves correctly.

"Either you do the honourable thing or you'll never hear the end of it."

So what else would be new? Again coming from someone who hasn't done an honourable thing in their life and who wouldn't recognise an "honourable thing" if it jumped up and bit them on the arse - that is a bit rich.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 04:35 AM

"Yet another standard Carroll tactic demonstrate"
Yet another display of non-informative, arrogant bad manners
"on this thread you have been hammered"
Yep - you've certainly taken the crowd with you on this one - totally outnumbered!!
The old soldiers are liars, the officer who boasted about carrying out executions was raving mad and we have your cross-my-heart word that they didn't happen - what else can a girl do but surrender to such forceful arguments!!!
I GIVE IN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 04:45 AM

Well that's your uninformed opinion and I'm more then happy to let you fester in your bile and bitterness. However, you made a specific allegation about what I've said about "summary executions" which is patently untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 05:10 AM

"The old soldiers are liars" - Ehmmm No Jom they just don't say what you say they said.

"the officer who boasted about carrying out executions was raving mad" - Mad? that's a new invention of yours Jom - more made up shit - his fellow officers and Historians Stephen Walker and Charles Messenger accused him {Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier} of being a raving LIAR. And you were asked to provide an example or a reference to where and when this officer boasted about carrying out executions and - oddly enough you fell remarkably silent - well not that remarkably really as your claim that he boasted about executions that he had carried out was a complete and utter fabrication - BECAUSE - By his own admission Brigadier-General Frank Percy Crozier was only ever involved in one execution during the entire course of the First World War - OWN ADMISSION Carroll, well documented fact which you can read for yourself, the Court Martial papers relating to the case against Private James Crozier exist and are available - There was nothing summary about his execution at all the link that you yourself provided supports all I have said on this instance.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 05:52 AM

"Ehmmm No Jom they just don't say what you say they said."
Then the documentors are liars?
"of being a raving LIAR."
Been there - done that
Nowhere have they said that his claims of executions were not true - nor, as far as I can find, has anybody else.
The winners of wars never ever commit atrocities, they just write the history books - didn't you know that?
"well documented fact"#Then why the fuck to you never ever produce documented fat instead of strutting around like a bullying little Napoleon.
I don't ever beileve a worrd you clame -0 you are a jingoistic propagandist whio refuses to provide back up to wat you claim
I cannot recall one single point you have ever won anybody on this forum over to
You are a running joke - and your continuing bad mannered arrogance will continue to underline what you are - please keep it up, it saves the rest of us a job.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

By the way
"The Court Martial papers relating to the case against Private James Crozier exist and are available"
Another prime example of your lying behaviour on this forum
Crozier was never court martialed - he was forced to resign over "dishonoured cheques"
You are as insane as your mad mate in lying about something that is easily provable with a little effort (that you obviously are not prepared to put in)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 08:57 AM

Sorry Jim, you've got your Crozierrs mixed up there.

Perhaps Terri would provide a link to his source though, not something he likes to do.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 09:16 AM

Sorry Raggy - thanks for the heads up.
I got the name wrong but the facts (or distortion of them) remain unchanged
As I should have said, Brigadeer - General Frank Percy Crozier was never court martialed - or if he was, there is no record of him having been.
However, perhaps it's worth putting up the information on the feller I was confusing him with
Jim Carroll

Few soldiers wanted to be in a firing squad. Many were soldiers at a base camp recovering from wounds that still stopped them from fighting at the front but did not preclude them from firing a Lee Enfield rifle. Some of those in firing squads were under the age of sixteen, as were some of those who were shot for 'cowardice'. James Crozier from Belfast was shot at dawn for desertion – he was just sixteen. Before his execution, Crozier was given so much rum that he passed out. He had to be carried, semi-conscious, to the place of execution. Officers at the execution later claimed that there was a very real fear that the men in the firing squad would disobey the order to shoot. Private Abe Bevistein, aged sixteen, was also shot by firing squad at Labourse, near Calais. As with so many others cases, he had been found guilty of deserting his post. Just before his court martial, Bevistein wrote home to his mother:
"We were in the trenches. I was so cold I went out (and took shelter in a farm house). They took me to prison so I will have to go in front of the court. I will try my best to get out of it, so don't worry."
......
Immediately after the war, there were claims that the executions of soldiers was a class issue. James Crozier was found guilty of deserting his post and was shot. Two weeks earlier, 2nd Lieutenant Annandale was found guilty of the same but was not sentenced to death due to "technicalities". In the duration of the war, fifteen officers, sentenced to death, received a royal pardon. In the summer of 1916, all officers of the rank of captain and above were given an order that all cases of cowardice should be punished by death and that a medical excuse should not be tolerated. However, this was not the case if officers were found to be suffering from neurasthenia.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 09:21 AM

Should have said it was Brigadier - General Frank Percy Crozier who was forced to resign for dishonouring cheques
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 09:30 AM

In the summer of 1916, an order was issued that, in the cases of cowardice, medical excuses should not be taken into account; however, an exception was allowed for officers suffering from neurasthenia (an ill-defined condition which includes
symptoms similar to shell shock).

Wiki
Controversy[edit]
In 1895, Sigmund Freud reviewed electrotherapy and declared it a "pretense treatment." He emphasized the example of Elizabeth von R's note that "the stronger these were the more they seemed to push her own pains into the background."
Nevertheless, neurasthenia was a common diagnosis during World War I for "shell shock",[9] but its use declined a decade later.[citation needed] Soldiers who deserted their post could be executed even if they had a medical excuse, but officers who had neurasthenia were not executed.[10]
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 11:03 AM

WHAT claims of summary executions Jom?

Claims of summary executions made by whom?

Any names of those executed? - No of course there aren't any names

Any inkling as to where and when these people were executed? - Not the slightest whisper on that score either is there Jom?

Any information as to who had carried out those executions? - None whatsoever.

Any actual eye-witnesses? - Nary a single one

By the way Raggy I do not have to provide a link regarding the Court Martial of Private James Crozier and the involvement in those proceedings of Frank Percy Crozier who was young Private Crozier's Commanding Officer as - GUESS WHAT? - Your pal Jim Carroll had already posted the link and not one single word in it contradicts a single thing I have said.

Frank Percy Crozier was only ever involved in three executions in his entire military career, one in Northern Nigeria just after the Boer War, that of Private James Crozier during the First World War, and finally that of Kevin Barry during the Irish War of Independence.

Much as Jim Carroll would like to infer otherwise, Frank Percy Crozier did not carry out any summary executions during the First World War, and no sentries serving in units under his command were ever shot out of hand for falling asleep at their posts.

And while Jom loves to broadcast incredibly misleading statements that he thinks he understands but doesn't. Over 38,000 soldiers were charges with desertion during the First World War the vast majority of those offences took place in Britain prior to deployment overseas. Of that number only 3,080 of then were sentenced to death - only 1 in 10 cases was the sentence ever carried out.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 11:08 AM

Beeen here done this dozens of times Teribus
All these questions have been responded to
You are just wasting our time asking them again
"Frank Percy Crozier did not carry out any summary executions "
Prove it
He wasn't court martialled you lied.
""The Court Martial papers relating to the case against Private James Crozier exist and are available""
Why should we waste time responding to a liar who hasn't teh decency to acknowledge his lies when he has been found out?
Save it for closing time dahn the pub - you don't impress anybody here with your jingoistic bullshit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 16 - 03:08 PM

"Claims of summary executions made by whom?"

Certainly not by me, that's for sure, despite what you alleged.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:55 AM

"He wasn't court martialled you lied."

Ehmmm Jom, I have never claimed that Frank Percy Crozier was ever Court Martialled - the fact that you apparently think I did is merely another demonstration of your appallingly poor comprehension of the English language.

Private James Crozier - you know the guy you would like to have us believe Frank Percy Crozier has summarily executed - James Crozier was arrested some twenty miles behind the British lines, charged with desertion, Court Martialled, found GUILTY as charged and sentenced to death. The death sentence was signed and confirmed by Sir Douglas Haig some five days later. Frank Percy Crozier was involved in this process due to the fact that he was Private James Crozier's Commanding Officer - there you have it Jom, is that clear enough for you? Do you understand that? Are you clear that I have not changed a thing and that this is what I stated before? That the above is all clear from the link that you yourself provided.

By the way there is absolutely nothing "Jingoistic" about writing down the truth to counter the complete and utter load of biased, Anglophobic, bigoted, lying bullshit that you constantly come out with.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 03:57 AM

" I have never claimed that Frank Percy Crozier was ever Court Martialled "
I know that now - it was pointed out to me by someone far more polite and knowledgeable than you
Took a bit of time to get my head around my mistake, but I finally got there
It was a red-herring anyway - nobody ever disputed that the official murder of James Crozier wasn't done 'by the book'.
You lied by claiming that the details of James Crozier's court martial was available - it isn't - none of these MURDERS are available in detail - they are referred to as having happened - that's all.
Truth ?
A century later we still don't know the truth.
Vast numbers of the unnoficial diaries and journals (only officers were officially allowed to keep them) that were kept are still unavailable and many of those available are censored.
You talk about "names of those summarily executed" - you know damn well that it is impossible to provide them because we have no proof of how many who went 'missing in action' actually did
Crozier boasted of summary executions and wrote at length justifying the killing of British soldiers who had had enough or who had been driven insane by what was happening to them
There is evidence of an attempt to cover up some of his executions by passing them off as 'missing in action'.
You say Crozier was 'mad' and a 'liar' - maybe he was, but he was a high ranking officer, extensively decorated (yes - I know he lied about some of his medals), and nobody hads ever contradidicted his claim to have summerally executed men who fell asleep on duty - only you have done that.
There is every reason to believe, from the oral evidence of soldiers - whoops sorry "liars" that this happened with Crozier and elsewhere.
Of course you are a jingoist - an extremist right-wing one.
You have defended every single aspect of the shitty war - the 'good leaders' who sent the wrong shells, who sacrificed men like so many cattle, Sebastapol, The Somme, Passchendaele, the Loos cock-up..... all "well-led glorious" fights for 'freedom.
Your world is of heroic, skillful officers and lying soldiers - your own archaic establishment arse-licking stupidity mirrors the stupidity that decimated a generation - how archaically jingoistic is that?
I used to put your refusal to provide a scrap of back-up evidence to anything you claim down to laziness and lack of imagination - I've come to realise that it is because there is no evidence to back up anything you say so you make it up as you go along - your little effort into linking to prove a handful of looters set fire to Sackville Street, rather than the British artillery that actually did the major damage, proves that beyond a shred of doubt.
Even Keith, who isn't the brightest button in the sewing box, used to provide 'evidence' of his outrageous claims, misinterpreted and distorted as it usually was.
You are either too lazy or too stupid to even do that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:16 AM

Actually.. what's all the fuss about...???

when you think about it...
is there really that much difference between summary executions and ordering men into no man's land towards certain death...???

The end result for the hapless low rank soldier would be exactly the same.... 😬


... and you may also wonder, if teribus had been an officer in command in the trenches..
how long he'd have lasted before being shot by his own men.....??????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:16 AM

Steve,
You say stuff that you can't corroborate, then, when confronted, you just try to walk away from it

You do that all the time Steve!!
Most recently you claimed that the "pro-Israel lobby" controls our governments, especially the US government, but when asked how you just walked away.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:21 AM

"being shot by his own men"
What a pleasant thought to finish the day on.
On second thoughts - would they do that - who would cook their greasy fry-ups?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 11:27 AM

No Keith. I never walk away. I just ignore your stupid games. And I'm ignoring them again now. As a matter of fact, you've been resoundingly answered already by Jim. Now move along, please.

Subject: RE: BS: No poppies for me
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 16 - 01:03 PM

""pro-Israel lobby" controls our governments"
The facts implicate the lobby - you've had a list of the actions of the Pro Israel group - you've dismissed them as propaganda
These are some of the propagandists you have accused of lying
Can't be arsed blue-clickying them - you won't respond to theh manyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald    Glen Greenwald
ISRAELI SOLDIERS' TESTIMONIES of WAR CRIMINALITY

CRIMINALISING CRITICISM of ISRAEL in CANADA   Michael Keefer

Michael Keefer is Professor Emeritus in the School of English and Theatre Studies of the University of Guelph. A graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, the University of Toronto, and Sussex University, he is a former president of the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English, a member of the Seriously Free Speech Committee, and an associate member of Independent Jewish Voices Canada.

UPDATE on SETTLER VIOLENCE U.N.
United Nations Human Rights

SETTLER VIOLENCE - LACK of ACCOUNTABILITY   B'Tselmem

http://www.btselem.org/topic/settler_violence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_for_Children_International Defense for Children (Palestine)
SETTLER VIOLENCE - LACK of ACCOUNTABILITY


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Monitor Media Monitor Network
ISRAEL'S CRIMES AGAINST PALESTINIANS

ISRAEL'S CRIMES AGAINST PALESTINIANS
REPORT BY ANTISEMITIC AMNESTY

Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS)
ZIONISM, RACISM and the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
Jim Carroll