Churchill: a white supermacist and mass murderer?

[TomC]

Iy8Bt_V971o

So ****ing funny watching Piers Morgan get so triggered here. Susanna Reid really went down in my estimation though. I don’t know a whole lot about Churchill, but Greer seems to know his stuff, and for Morgan to get so offended about a bloody historical figure is laughable. You’d think Greer was slagging of Piers’ late mother! So good to see someone actually get under Piers skin.

[Smithy]

Piers is such a snowflake

[Matthew.]

1089924491965288448

[Liam-]

God that ginger guy is even more smug than Piers, never though that would be possible, what an odious creature

[Greg!]

Piers and the ginger are both really annoying

[Moniqua]

Piers can die

[Ramsay]

Ginger dude is right

[lewis111]

The only rebuttal Piers had was “but he won the war”
Completely ignoring all of the disgusting things the other guy was mentioning Churchill has done - it’s like “who cares if he killed millions of people of different colours across the world at least he helped the Brits”

[TomC]

Its so ****ing stupid, like Piers and Susanna clearly don’t understand the history can lie

[Moniqua]

literally 90% of my peers @ school are just as much of a snowflake as that SCUMBAG Piers :fist::oh:

anytime ah state a different opinion ah get socked in the jaw WHEW :oh::fist::oh::fist:

[Crimson Dynamo]

A silly wee boy with no stake in society nor appreciation of factscand perspective. An embarrassment to his family.

If only life was as simple as his life view is. He needs to get laid

[smudgie]

A silly wee boy with no stake in society nor appreciation of factscand perspective. An embarrassment to his family.

If only life was as simple as his life view is. He needs to get laid

Aye.
Would do him the world of good.

[Oliver_W]

Greer is just a dumb kid who doesn't know anything, sounds like he overdosed on Buzzfeed or something. God knows how he got anyone to vote for him.

[Firewire]

I mean Churchill definitely was a White supremacist. So I don't get why this has caused such an outrage.

[Firewire]

BUT, I don't know what he thinks he can gain from this. It plays no part in today's politics so it just feels like wasted breath.

[user104658]

He was literally and openly a white supremacist throughout his entire career... it's historical fact :joker:. People are very uncomfortable with that I guess.

I dunno. I also find Piers' insistence that "Churchill won the war for Britain!" to be pretty offensive to the memory of the millions of men and women who actually fought and won the war.

[Smithy]

A silly wee boy with no stake in society nor appreciation of factscand perspective. An embarrassment to his family.

If only life was as simple as his life view is. He needs to get laid

Aye.
Would do him the world of good.

Greer is just a dumb kid who doesn't know anything, sounds like he overdosed on Buzzfeed or something. God knows how he got anyone to vote for him.

Ignore the very valid points raised and just insult him... sounds about right

[Oliver_W]

Ignore the very valid points raised and just insult him... sounds about right

You mean the oh-so-valid point about how Churchill evilly starved Bangalis, when he was actually involved in fighting the famine, as Piers pointed out?

[Tom4784]

People like to paint over the cracks when it comes to Churchill, yes he led the country through the war but facts are facts. He WAS a white supremacist. Like many historical figures, he was a complicated individual that was capable of great good and bad. Trying to rewrite history to remove the bits people don't like or agree with is a foolish act.

[Twosugars]

People like to paint over the cracks when it comes to Churchill, yes he led the country through the war but facts are facts. He WAS a white supremacist. Like many historical figures, he was a complicated individual that was capable of great good and bad. Trying to rewrite history to remove the bits people don't like or agree with is a foolish act.

well said

[Oliver_W]

People like to paint over the cracks when it comes to Churchill, yes he led the country through the war but facts are facts. He WAS a white supremacist. Like many historical figures, he was a complicated individual that was capable of great good and bad. Trying to rewrite history to remove the bits people don't like or agree with is a foolish act.

Sure. But there's no point in whinging on social media about how nasty historic figures are. It achieves nothing, and when people aren't able to carry conversations well (like Greer) it just makes them look pathetic, and makes the arguments themselves look stupid. Plus, why even say it? It's like calling someone ugly.

[smudgie]

People like to paint over the cracks when it comes to Churchill, yes he led the country through the war but facts are facts. He WAS a white supremacist. Like many historical figures, he was a complicated individual that was capable of great good and bad. Trying to rewrite history to remove the bits people don't like or agree with is a foolish act.

I don’t think it’s so much painting over the cracks, it’s just an understanding that the world was so different back then.
No doubt about his believing in white supremacy, unfortunately that wasn’t unusual back then. More the norm really.
The same as the class differences.
Thank heavens we have moved on, not just in this matter either.

[Firewire]

It's like calling someone ugly.

It isn't.

Calling someone ugly is a matter of opinion in the first instance, but it's just downright nasty.

Calling someone a white supremacist, a white supremacist, is neither of the above.

So you can't possibly compare the two.

[Oliver_W]

It isn't.

Calling someone ugly is a matter of opinion in the first instance, but it's just downright nasty.

Calling someone a white supremacist, a white supremacist, is neither of the above.

So you can't possibly compare the two.

I don't mean being ugly and being a white supremacist are comparable, I mean calling someone ugly and referring to a historical figure as a white supremacist are both pointless and achieve nothing.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Judging history by your own myopic age based worldview to get likes

Wow

Tibb on fire

[user104658]

Judging history by your own myopic age based worldview to get likes

Wow

Tibb on fire

Churchill is problematic LT just deal with it.

[Beso]

I suppose it can be forgiven for all the good he did...a bit like jimmy Saville.

[user104658]

I suppose it can be forgiven for all the good he did...a bit like jimmy Saville.

I'm honestly not sure if you're joking or not Parm :joker:

[bots]

All of royalty, all of the members of parliament, and 90% of the UK population had the same views as Churchill at the time. Go back a few years further and people were burned at the stake because of not conforming to religious beliefs in vogue at the time.

History is there to be judged and to be learned from. We do, thats how society progresses. We have come a long way in a relatively short period of time.

People can judge Churchill unkindly if they like, but circumstances brought him to be the PM at a time of war when we would absolutely have been overrun by the Nazi's if not for him. That doesnt make him a saint, it makes him the right person for the time. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Tom4784]

Sure. But there's no point in whinging on social media about how nasty historic figures are. It achieves nothing, and when people aren't able to carry conversations well (like Greer) it just makes them look pathetic, and makes the arguments themselves look stupid. Plus, why even say it? It's like calling someone ugly.

There's no point in attacking someone for pointing out facts too but that's not stopped you in at least two posts having potshots at the man for stating an actual fact. I'd say those insults are truly pointless because at least what Greer is saying is factual.

Hero worship is pointless and downright dangerous if people are insistent on pretending Churchill was perfect. He wasn't and it's not a bad thing to acknowledge the bad alongside the good. If anything, the big takeaway with this story is how much people will try to rewrite history to protect their heroes when it's healthier to accept the whole truth about historical figures and not a version that's been edited to suit agendas.

[Oliver_W]

Hero worship is pointless and downright dangerous if people are insistent on pretending Churchill was perfect. He wasn't and it's not a bad thing to acknowledge the bad alongside the good. If anything, the big takeaway with this story is how much people will try to rewrite history to protect their heroes when it's healthier to accept the whole truth about historical figures and not a version that's been edited to suit agendas.
I don't think anyone pretends Churchill was perfect. Talking about the hand he played in the Allies victory in WWII doesn't really need to include how much of a racist he was, especially as his views reflected the "consensus" at the time - I'm not saying it's okay because everyone else though it, just that there's no need to point it out.

[Northern Monkey]

Judging a man who grew up in the Edwardian era by today’s super woke standards is obviously ridiculous.
I’m sure many many historical figures have skeletons in their closets.Ghandi?Mandela?
Besides that ginger turd would be speaking German and eating sourkraut for breakfast if it was’nt for Churchill.He wants to be abit more greatful.

[Alf]

Judging a man who grew up in the Edwardian era by today’s super woke standards is obviously ridiculous.
I’m sure many many historical figures have skeletons in their closets.Ghandi?Mandela?
Besides that ginger turd would be speaking German and eating sourkraut for breakfast if it was’nt for Churchill.He wants to be abit more greatful.That ginger wouldn't be speaking German. It's more likely that he, along with you, I and the rest of us, wouldn't have ever existed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Churchill is problematic LT just deal with it.

Only for kids looking for likes, not among grown ups he aint

[user104658]

Judging a man who grew up in the Edwardian era by today’s super woke standards is obviously ridiculous.
I’m sure many many historical figures have skeletons in their closets.Ghandi?Mandela?

Ghandi and Mandela are both great examples actually. They have skeletons, zombies, dead children, the works :joker:. Anyone who likes their history nice 'n' sweet might not want to look too hard at Mother Teresa, also.


Besides that ginger turd would be speaking German and eating sourkraut for breakfast if it was’nt for Churchill.He wants to be abit more greatful.

See I personally think this is just as offensive to the memory of the British men and women who fought in the war as the oft-used "You would be German if we hadn't stepped in!!" jibes in American TV shows. There's just no way to assess whether it's accurate or not. We know that Churchill didn't LOSE the war for us, but we have no idea how things would have gone (better, worse, or just the same) with a different PM. There IS no way to know. And I think giving a huge chunk of the credit for sacrifices made by literally millions of people to one individual who, even when it came to tactics and strategy, was only one small piece of the equation, is a bit... off.

I also personally believe it's important to recognise that the VAST majority of historical success stories are stories of exemplary human cooperation and that myths, fables andtales of great heroes are just that. Stories. Half-truths, exaggerations and fictions.

[user104658]

Only for kids looking for likes, not among grown ups he aint

You are being just like Churchill. Problematic.

[Kazanne]

Piers was right imo,Nelson Mandella is a hero to many but you could pick out parts of his life which were called terroism, the same could be said for many heroes, Churchill also did a lot of good ,none of the human race is perfect and the guy grinning like a Cheshire cat needs to read up the FACTS about the war years,to liken him to Hitler was pathetic.

[Livia]

What is this nonsense? Every so often some young person with no life experience bobs up to give us their version of history by using hindsight... which as we all know is 20/20 after the fact.

Can I remind everyone that this "white supremacist" was instrumental in ending Nazi Germany?

This is a tired, boring, meaningless argument that raises its head every so often. I hope next time they come up with a new angle because this one is getting old.

[Livia]

Churchill is problematic LT just deal with it.

Only for kids looking for likes, not among grown ups he aint

I'm with LT on this one.

[user104658]

I'm going to have to in a completely unexpected and uncharacteristic move say that I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle :joker:.

I think it's fine to acknowledge that Churchill (along with the rest of the ruling class across most of Europe at the time) had white supremacist tendancies. It's not irrelevant to understanding the history, in fact, it's quite relevant and important because it helps us to understand HOW something like Nazi Germany happened, when otherwise it seems unfathomable. Essentially that Hitler's ideology was a twisted, wildly exaggerated and violent offshoot of a mindset that was sadly not that uncommon at the time. Basically, a lot of people BELIEVED in racial supremacy and the "ubermensch" ideology (of selective breeding being ideal) was widely held as being scientific truth.

It's important to remember because if we re-write the history to be that Hitler was a lone crazy person with wildly unusual ideas who somehow got into power, we fail to understand that it could happen again.

It doesn't alter the facts when it comes to the military victory which really has very little to do with the ideologies of the people involved. It just opens up the very uncomfortable notion that someone could be BOTH a racial supremacist AND fighting for "good", when in a historical context, that's extremely likely... since most people believed it, and it stands to reason that they weren't somehow all evil.


I would guess it's simply "too recent" for the history of WW2 to be viewed in purely accurate / academic terms, though... in a few hundred years time, I would imagine that people will be far more comfortable discussing it in the same way we discuss Medieval wars and kings now, i.e. out of pure historical curiosity without the attached sentiment and "national pride" that comes with more recent history.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I'm going to have to in a completely unexpected and uncharacteristic move say that I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle :joker:.

I think it's fine to acknowledge that Churchill (along with the rest of the ruling class across most of Europe at the time) had white supremacist tendancies. It's not irrelevant to understanding the history, in fact, it's quite relevant and important because it helps us to understand HOW something like Nazi Germany happened, when otherwise it seems unfathomable. Essentially that Hitler's ideology was a twisted, wildly exaggerated and violent offshoot of a mindset that was sadly not that uncommon at the time. Basically, a lot of people BELIEVED in racial supremacy and the "ubermensch" ideology (of selective breeding being ideal) was widely held as being scientific truth.

It's important to remember because if we re-write the history to be that Hitler was a lone crazy person with wildly unusual ideas who somehow got into power, we fail to understand that it could happen again.

It doesn't alter the facts when it comes to the military victory which really has very little to do with the ideologies of the people involved. It just opens up the very uncomfortable notion that someone could be BOTH a racial supremacist AND fighting for "good", when in a historical context, that's extremely likely... since most people believed it, and it stands to reason that they weren't somehow all evil.


I would guess it's simply "too recent" for the history of WW2 to be viewed in purely accurate / academic terms, though... in a few hundred years time, I would imagine that people will be far more comfortable discussing it in the same way we discuss Medieval wars and kings now, i.e. out of pure historical curiosity without the attached sentiment and "national pride" that comes with more recent history.

yes and when they do look at the history lets leave it do learned professors of History writing and researching peer reviewed academic papers and not some spotty 24 year old herbert trying to get likes on da socials

[Nicky91]

yes and when they do look at the history lets leave it do learned professors of History writing and researching peer reviewed academic papers and not some spotty 24 year old herbert trying to get likes on da socials

ur repeating yourself lol


i might not be a professor of history myself, but everything i learned about WW1, WW2, napoleonic wars i learned at school, history was one of my favourite subjects which i had good grades for

my point is maybe some of these people on ''da socials'' also have learned about all of this at school in history class

[Crimson Dynamo]

ur repeating yourself lol


i might not be a professor of history myself, but everything i learned about WW1, WW2, napoleonic wars i learned at school, history was one of my favourite subjects which i had good grades for

my point is maybe some of these people on ''da socials'' also have learned about all of this at school in history class

learned what?

[user104658]

yes and when they do look at the history lets leave it do learned professors of History writing and researching peer reviewed academic papers and not some spotty 24 year old herbert trying to get likes on da socials

To be fair though, there ARE peer reviewed academic papers on Churchill that focus on all aspects of the man's life and not the "censored for patriotism" public image version, as with pretty much everything else related to WWII, it's just that those discussions usually remain in academic circles where people can view them objectively and critically, and aren't thrown around on Twitter and morning telly for Piers and the viewing public to get wound up about :joker:. And to be fair, there's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing to be gained in airing these things for people who don't want to delve into real history and prefer the "edited for public consumption" version... but then likewise, that's no reason to argue that real history simply doesn't exist.

[user104658]

learned what?

I believe arr Nicky will be referring to the fact that other countries receive a more open and well rounded education when it comes to WW2 than the UK does. Though to be fair; the US is worse... they don't really get told anything about America's stance before pearl harbour and US involvement is painted out to be wholly altruistic (when their policy was essentially isolationist until they realised that they were also a target and could indeed be attacked).

[user104658]

Also I mean... You have to admit... There's quite a lot of irony here.

"Millenial lefties are snowflakes who are offended by anything, not like us..."

"Churchill was a bit racist u kno"

"WHAT?? RrrrrEEEEeeeEeee!!! How dare! Very wrong! Not to say!"

[The Slim Reaper]

Was Churchill racist? Yes, but we wouldn't have to go too many generations back in our own families to find some pretty heinous opinions on race. Some of us wouldn't even have to go back any generations.

Did Churchill win the war for us? No, the Ruskies were far more influential in winning WWII than we were.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Also I mean... You have to admit... There's quite a lot of irony here.

"Millenial lefties are snowflakes who are offended by anything, not like us..."

"Churchill was a bit racist u kno"

"WHAT?? RrrrrEEEEeeeEeee!!! How dare! Very wrong! Not to say!"

I can understand that argument if he was besmirching te name of say John Craven but its not John is it and look at the twat who was doing it

TS even you must look at the guy and get what is going on?

Its perfect for Piers as his game is to mildly troll the audience and then act for them in their indignation

Its why the numbers are so good

[Twosugars]

Also I mean... You have to admit... There's quite a lot of irony here.

"Millenial lefties are snowflakes who are offended by anything, not like us..."

"Churchill was a bit racist u kno"

"WHAT?? RrrrrEEEEeeeEeee!!! How dare! Very wrong! Not to say!"

:laugh:

[Nicky91]

I believe arr Nicky will be referring to the fact that other countries receive a more open and well rounded education when it comes to WW2 than the UK does. Though to be fair; the US is worse... they don't really get told anything about America's stance before pearl harbour and US involvement is painted out to be wholly altruistic (when their policy was essentially isolationist until they realised that they were also a target and could indeed be attacked).

yes true, US weren't involved in WW2 at all before pearl harbour, also seeing documentaries on how Japan prepared for the pearl harbour attack, they were well informed also how close the US ships were to each other like sitting ducks

and after that pearl harbour attack, US knew they had to join the fight with the allies of Canada, UK, and for their own reasons Soviet-Union who were also against the Axis of Germany, Italy and Japan after Germany invaded them (and broke their poland treaty)

[user104658]

I can understand that argument if he was besmirching te name of say John Craven but its not John is it and look at the twat who was doing it



TS even you must look at the guy and get what is going on?



Its perfect for Piers as his game is to mildly troll the audience and then act for them in their indignation



Its why the numbers are so goodThe point is that people are getting upset at some little fella on the telly. I mean... It IS a bit over-sensitive isn't it? And yes Piers trolls but he also gets himself pretty frustrated and worked up at times, which really isn't the best idea for a slightly overweight man in his 50's :think:.

I get that the young guy whoever he is is blatantly trolling too but I don't get why people are getting upset or taking personal offense over it, and can't deal with the facts as they are and make a rational counter point (that Churchill held some beliefs that are now outdated but were pretty common at the time, and it's important to add historical context and not judge based on current morality).

[Tom4784]

I don't think anyone pretends Churchill was perfect. Talking about the hand he played in the Allies victory in WWII doesn't really need to include how much of a racist he was, especially as his views reflected the "consensus" at the time - I'm not saying it's okay because everyone else though it, just that there's no need to point it out.

But that's exactly what I'm saying, you don't think it's important to point it out but it's a part of who Churchill was. You're basically saying you want to wash out the bad stuff because of his role in WW2 and that's wrong. You can't close your eyes to an ugly truth about a person or a time, you've got to accept it all.

Chuchill wasn't a mythical hero, he was a real person with real views that achieved great things but he wasn't a morally great man. It's best to keep your eyes open when it comes to history, accept the good with the bad. History is an ugly thing but we don't do ourselves any favours by trying to make out it's prettier than it actually is.

[arista]

Was Churchill racist? Yes, but we wouldn't have to go too many generations back in our own families to find some pretty heinous opinions on race. Some of us wouldn't even have to go back any generations.

Did Churchill win the war for us? No, the Ruskies were far more influential in winning WWII than we were.


Bollocks the War started in Sept 1939
Churchill took control in 1940
No Russian problem at the start.


Sure at the End of the War
Russia took alot.
USA and Russia concluded our War
and of course Hitler was dead in his bunker
Russia got there first

[The Slim Reaper]

Bollocks the War started in Sept 1939
Churchill took control in 1940
No Russian problem at the start.


Sure at the End of the War
Russia took alot.
USA and Russia concluded our War
and of course Hitler was dead in his bunker
Russia got there first

That doesn't really make too much sense; I made no claims about what happened at the start of the war. Sorry, what I said was true, and getting there first was not even part of my consideration.

[bots]

26 million Russians died during World War II, they gave everything to fighting the nazis. Anyone who has been to Moscow will have seen the barricade that marks the line where the Nazis got to, it wasn't far from the city center at all. No-one is suggesting that the Soviet regime was a good one at the time of the war, but nevertheless, they were a key part of winning the war

[arista]

That doesn't really make too much sense; I made no claims about what happened at the start of the war. Sorry, what I said was true, and getting there first was not even part of my consideration.


Russia took one side of Germany
USA took the other side

No way at the end of the War
did Russia win it alone
America was also there.
Thats what you Skip.

[user104658]

26 million Russians died during World War II, they gave everything to fighting the nazis. Anyone who has been to Moscow will have seen the barricade that marks the line where the Nazis got to, it wasn't far from the city center at all. No-one is suggesting that the Soviet regime was a good one at the time of the war, but nevertheless, they were a key part of winning the war

Well, exactly... no matter how great of a strategist we think Churchill was, it's a cold hard fact that Britain (and probably from there, the US) would have been defeated in WWII without the Soviet Union. But you won't hear many people arguing that Stalin was a great guy because he was instrumental in defeating Hitler's Germany... or that as a result, the millions killed by famine under his regime are "not relevant" to the man's history. We're happy to hear all about Stalin and the Soviet Union... but not Churchill... because "he's one of ours" so he must by necessity be "better".

[user104658]

Russia took one side of Germany
USA took the other side

No way at the end of the War
did Russia win it alone
America was also there.
Thats what you Skip.

Well yes but the point is that it was only won because of the divided front and it's quite likely that the German army could have held either east or west against the Russians or the rest of the Allies, but had to split the army in two and was thus defeated... but the only point relevant to this thread, really, is that Stalin was as instrumental to the war as Churchill and we don't give Stalin a "pass" for everything else in his life, so why Churchill?

[The Slim Reaper]

Russia took one side of Germany
USA took the other side

No way at the end of the War
did Russia win it alone
America was also there.
Thats what you Skip.

Now you're talking about the final acts. I haven't skipped anything my friend. I didn't say that Russia won the war alone, or that they even won the war. What I said, was that they were far more instrumental in winning the war than we were, which is actually a pretty uncontroversial statement.

[user104658]

Now you're talking about the final acts. I haven't skipped anything my friend. I didn't say that Russia won the war alone, or that they even won the war. What I said, was that they were far more instrumental in winning the war than we were, which is actually a pretty uncontroversial statement.

Err no Churchill, The Queen, Piers Morgan and the Great British Public won the war END OF and no amount of "history" or "facts" will stop that from being true. SUPER BRIIITAIN SUPER BRIIITAIN oleeeé oleeeé olé!!

[Mokka]

Well in Canada we are taught that we won the war :hee:

[arista]

Now you're talking about the final acts. I haven't skipped anything my friend. I didn't say that Russia won the war alone, or that they even won the war. What I said, was that they were far more instrumental in winning the war than we were, which is actually a pretty uncontroversial statement.


Sure
so was USA

[arista]

Well in Canada we are taught that we won the war :hee:



Yes Canada troops
part of the important team
fighting a then , Powerful Germany
With GB, India , Africa Nations
and many more nations

[Beso]

Didn't Russia start off as Germanys allies?

[arista]

Didn't Russia start off as Germanys allies?


Yes early on,
then Hitler
changed his mind (half way through the war)
and then stormed into Russia
only held back when it was snowing.


Hitler a Deadly Evil Leader
like no other

[Beso]

So therefore Russia did NOT do more than GB to win the war, in fact they probably prolonged it by 2-3 years.

[Oliver_W]

It is slightly amusing how he spergs on about how Churchill didn't win the war, the servicemen did, but still calls Churchill a mass murderer.

[arista]

So therefore Russia did NOT do more than GB to win the war, in fact they probably prolonged it by 2-3 years.


Its More Complex
As Hitler Took over France
and some African Nations

And of Course the Clever Japan Army
attacked the USA in Pearl Harbor
That dragged the USA in a Full War
and also taking German Bomb Developers
direct to USA for their rush to test a Atomic Bomb
on Japan, and they did more than one
forcing Japan to give in.

[Twosugars]

So therefore Russia did NOT do more than GB to win the war, in fact they probably prolonged it by 2-3 years.

:facepalm:

[The Slim Reaper]

Its More Complex
As Hitler Took over France
and some African Nations

And of Course the Clever Japan Army
attacked the USA in Pearl Harbor
That dragged the USA in a Full War
and also taking German Bomb Developers
direct to USA for their rush to test a Atomic Bomb
on Japan, and they did more than one
forcing Japan to give in.

Hold on a minute, is this the same Arista?

[Beso]

:facepalm:

:sleep:

[Twosugars]

:sleep:

:pat:

[user104658]

It is slightly amusing how he spergs on about how Churchill didn't win the war, the servicemen did, but still calls Churchill a mass murderer.It's not really incompatible though because when he talks of murder, he's more likely referring to deliberate infrastructure damage campaigns (where civilians were the specific target rather than collateral damage) and - while obviously, the Germans were fans too - Churchill did enjoy a good bombing now and then. He ordered things that would now be considered war crimes, although again, important to remember to put that in historic context as ALL military leaders throughout the ages did things that would now be considered war crimes, and I'm sure modern militaries are doing things right now that will be considered war crimes in 50 years time.

But still... That's how one might consider a leader to be a murderer whilst still admiring the common or garden footsoldier.

[Beso]

:pat:

:creep: