By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Doesn't seem that long since the last of the World War One soldiers went, now those who are left from the Second, if still with us, are also reaching great age.
Johnson was the bomb aimer in Joe McCarthy’s crew for the dams raid (Operation Chastise). They were sent to attack the Sorpe dam which differed from the other two in that it was essentially an earth based pyramid, so couldn’t be attacked bouncing the mine to the dam wall. It had to be dropped flying along it.
After about 10 attempts to get it right, Johnson dropped their bomb. It didn’t breech the dam but it did damage it which meant the reservoir had to be drained to repair it. The problem for McCarthy’s crew was visibility rather than flak. Flying at 60 feet in an aeroplane the size of a Lancaster is dangerous any time. At night in poor visibility over an enemy country? Good luck with that.
Johnson was an NCO at the time of the dams raid, commissioned soon after he left the RAF in 1962 as a Squadron Leader. RIP Johnny Johnson. A brave man.
2
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 11:09 - Dec 8 with 3110 views
After Guy Gibson left 617 Squadron it was quite difficult to choose a successor who would be sufficiently respected by the remaining Dambuster pilots and crews. In the end there was only one man who could possibly fit the bill:
Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, VC, OM, DSO & 2 Bars, DFC.
At the time of his appointment Cheshire willingly agreed to a demotion to Wing Commander in order to command 617.
RIP, Johnny.
1
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 18:20 - Dec 8 with 2793 views
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 11:09 - Dec 8 by solemio
A great man, Johnny Johnson.
After Guy Gibson left 617 Squadron it was quite difficult to choose a successor who would be sufficiently respected by the remaining Dambuster pilots and crews. In the end there was only one man who could possibly fit the bill:
Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, VC, OM, DSO & 2 Bars, DFC.
At the time of his appointment Cheshire willingly agreed to a demotion to Wing Commander in order to command 617.
RIP, Johnny.
Lest we forget, there was a commander of 617 after Gibson and before Cheshire. He was Wing Commander George Holden DFC and bar, DSO, Mentioned in Despatches. He died in his fourth operation for 617 in an attack on the Dortmund-Ems canal. Four of Gibson’s crew on the Chastise raid died with him.
RIP them all.
[Post edited 8 Dec 2022 18:21]
1
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 18:26 - Dec 8 with 2767 views
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 18:29 - Dec 8 by Crawfordsboot
Just think what our press would be saying if Putin bombed a dam causing 1500 casualties (largely civilian) and wreaking destruction on infrastructure.
That’s not to say that the airmen were not brave, they were, but the orders they received were obscene
[Post edited 8 Dec 2022 18:32]
I think if we had been a war for 4 years, had part of our nation under occupation for most of that time, were aware that millions being killed in death camps and were looking for ways to try to bring the conflict to a conclusion the press would be largely supportive
There are plenty of books on this raid including the ‘revisionists’ versions of the activities of Bomber Command (Taylor and Hastings, for example). In my view they are wrong.
I suggest you read James Holland’s book on this operation and the activities of 617. Like his books on DDay and specifically the Sherwood Rangers, he looks at these events a little more objectively than some. Up to you.
3
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 18:45 - Dec 8 with 2697 views
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 18:33 - Dec 8 by Keno
I think if we had been a war for 4 years, had part of our nation under occupation for most of that time, were aware that millions being killed in death camps and were looking for ways to try to bring the conflict to a conclusion the press would be largely supportive
My point is that our press profess outrage that Putin should attack civilian targets as if to do so is, and always has been, morally unacceptable. They then portray the dambusters as heroes doing dashing deeds to save the world.
War is war in all its foul and awful manifestations. It was a terrible action, perhaps necessary but some describe it as a PR exercise. I suspect the memory of it will have weighed very heavy with the airmen invoved.
-1
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 19:00 - Dec 8 with 2657 views
There are plenty of books on this raid including the ‘revisionists’ versions of the activities of Bomber Command (Taylor and Hastings, for example). In my view they are wrong.
I suggest you read James Holland’s book on this operation and the activities of 617. Like his books on DDay and specifically the Sherwood Rangers, he looks at these events a little more objectively than some. Up to you.
I am not arguing for or against the dambusters ( I should have avoided using the word obscene) . Similarly I do not in any way support Russian actions in Ukraine i do however highlight the different moral tone taken when reporting the last of the dambusters and Russias attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure.
Interestingly:
“ In 1977, Article 56 of the Protocol I amendment to the Geneva Conventions, outlawed attacks on dams "if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population".
-1
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 19:00 - Dec 8 with 2654 views
There are plenty of books on this raid including the ‘revisionists’ versions of the activities of Bomber Command (Taylor and Hastings, for example). In my view they are wrong.
I suggest you read James Holland’s book on this operation and the activities of 617. Like his books on DDay and specifically the Sherwood Rangers, he looks at these events a little more objectively than some. Up to you.
This is Hollands document about the riad
The conclusion from 55 mins on is fairly conclusive
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 18:45 - Dec 8 by Crawfordsboot
My point is that our press profess outrage that Putin should attack civilian targets as if to do so is, and always has been, morally unacceptable. They then portray the dambusters as heroes doing dashing deeds to save the world.
War is war in all its foul and awful manifestations. It was a terrible action, perhaps necessary but some describe it as a PR exercise. I suspect the memory of it will have weighed very heavy with the airmen invoved.
That's so twisted.
You can't compare aggressor and defender in that way.
The allied forces were such as they defended democratic freedom in support of the various countries that Germany was intent on invading. The dambuster raid, like every other allied military operation was done to bring about the end of war which they did not start.
Putin stated a war. If he chooses to take that further he will be rightly vilified.
I think self defence is perfectly valuable reason especially in war.
It WAS a dashing deed to save th world from German and Japanese aggression, ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale, genocide and more besides to paint it any other way is utterly revisionist and quite wrong.
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 19:08 - Dec 8 by BlueandTruesince82
That's so twisted.
You can't compare aggressor and defender in that way.
The allied forces were such as they defended democratic freedom in support of the various countries that Germany was intent on invading. The dambuster raid, like every other allied military operation was done to bring about the end of war which they did not start.
Putin stated a war. If he chooses to take that further he will be rightly vilified.
I think self defence is perfectly valuable reason especially in war.
It WAS a dashing deed to save th world from German and Japanese aggression, ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale, genocide and more besides to paint it any other way is utterly revisionist and quite wrong.
[Post edited 8 Dec 2022 19:12]
Was going to reply saying similar, but you’ve put it far better than I could have - thanks and well said.
Only a couple of week ago I was delighted to attend a presentation on various WWI and WWII encounters (mainly operation Dead Stick, well worth looking up). As a bit of an aside, the presenter mentioned he had sat next to Johnny Johnson at a memorial dinner, he asked Johnny about the Dambusters film and what his thoughts were, how true to life it was, after a pause for reflection (and the presenter guy thinking he may have offended him) he says 'well yes, there were some real similarities, although, I don't remember the music playing along on the background!'
I suspect this is a tale rolled out on numerous occasions, but this presenter guy was in total awe of Johnny and he was a genuine legend.
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 19:08 - Dec 8 by BlueandTruesince82
That's so twisted.
You can't compare aggressor and defender in that way.
The allied forces were such as they defended democratic freedom in support of the various countries that Germany was intent on invading. The dambuster raid, like every other allied military operation was done to bring about the end of war which they did not start.
Putin stated a war. If he chooses to take that further he will be rightly vilified.
I think self defence is perfectly valuable reason especially in war.
It WAS a dashing deed to save th world from German and Japanese aggression, ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale, genocide and more besides to paint it any other way is utterly revisionist and quite wrong.
[Post edited 8 Dec 2022 19:12]
I am not looking to exalt or denigrate the actions of the bomber crews. Instead I highlighted the contrasting reactions in the press, and perhaps the public, to military action taken against infrastructure and civilians.
A review of Max Hastings book “Chastise” on the dambusters noted
It is sobering that Hastings’s overwhelming emotion at the end of Chastise is sympathy for those who flew, those who died, and the British commanders forced to make decisions that led to such loss of life on both sides.
I’ll leave it there.
0
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 19:39 - Dec 8 with 2514 views
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 18:45 - Dec 8 by Crawfordsboot
My point is that our press profess outrage that Putin should attack civilian targets as if to do so is, and always has been, morally unacceptable. They then portray the dambusters as heroes doing dashing deeds to save the world.
War is war in all its foul and awful manifestations. It was a terrible action, perhaps necessary but some describe it as a PR exercise. I suspect the memory of it will have weighed very heavy with the airmen invoved.
The Dambusters were considered dashing heroes at the time and for good reason. They actually didn’t know the target until the day of the raid but they did know their chances of survival weren’t great. And so it proved. Few, including Gibson, survived the war.
In May 1943, good news was still in short supply. For years we’d had no other method of seriously hitting back at Germany other than bombing them. Morality? It was debated, but the Luftwaffe had already engaged in that form of warfare, the fight was a desperate one, so what alternatives were there? At the time, none. Let’s not forget that in WW1 we’d virtually starved Germany to the Armistice (surrender) by blockade. Was that moral? No less than shooting a man to pieces on barbed wire or destroying people with phosgene.
At no time was was Chastise intended as a PR exercise. Most people included Harris thought it’d fail. It was never planned as ‘how good are we’. The daylight raid on Augsburg and the Dortmund-Ems raid after failed and turned 617 into a suicide squadron. No PR there and for good reason. Few were up for that.
The fact that Churchill was in America at the time of the dams raid and it was a spectacular visual success turned it into the PR success it was. And why not.
In terms of civilians being killed, have a look at operation Gomorrah if you want to see what true horror looks like. Did the crews have to live with this? Of course. And it’s horrible. But they did what they were asked with extraordinary bravery and horrendous loss. They made a huge difference to the outcome/timing of the ending of the war. But many lived with what they did.
Before we get all dewy eyed about the USAAF only attacking military targets, that really is PR. The theory was that with the Norden Bomb Sight you could put a bomb through a pickle barrel. It’s true. You could - as long as it was a sunny day in Arizona or Nevada and nobody was shooting at you. Good luck in Europe. So, if you bombed a ball bearing factory in the middle of a town, they’d destroy the lot. Rightly.
Dresden? Don’t tell anyone, they conducted I think two of the five raids. Best kept quiet as it doesn’t ‘fit’. But it’s how it was. Nobody will tell you the only reason Dresden wasn’t destroyed four years earlier was because we couldn’t do it. But it’s true. It was on the top ten target list in 1939. Shhh.
Your point re Putin is interesting. In 2022 what is acceptable, what is not? I think I know, but it always comes back to should Putin have invaded a sovereign territory to grab what wasn’t his last Feb? For me, just like Hitler, no.
Apologies all - I’ve banged on too much about this. On my grandparents piano was a picture of a smiling young man in flying gear. His name was never mentioned. Ten years ago, I asked my dad about him. He was my dad’s cousin and he remembered him. His name was John Matthews. He served with Bomber Command from the start of war in 50 Squadron on Hampdens as an air gunner. He died in March 1941 in an attack on the port of Brest. He was one of 1000s of amazing people. RIP them all.
[Post edited 8 Dec 2022 19:45]
4
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 19:53 - Dec 8 with 2462 views
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 19:30 - Dec 8 by Crawfordsboot
I am not looking to exalt or denigrate the actions of the bomber crews. Instead I highlighted the contrasting reactions in the press, and perhaps the public, to military action taken against infrastructure and civilians.
A review of Max Hastings book “Chastise” on the dambusters noted
It is sobering that Hastings’s overwhelming emotion at the end of Chastise is sympathy for those who flew, those who died, and the British commanders forced to make decisions that led to such loss of life on both sides.
I’ll leave it there.
The press understandably celebrated and continues to celebrate the an act of great bravery to bring about the end of war not started by those who were involved in it.
Your expectation that they would treat and act by an aggressive nation in the same way is, strange..That's the only way i describe it.
If someone breaks into your house and punches you and you punch them back would you expect your character to be painted the same way as said burgler? Should you be held to the same standard as them?
In your scenario one act is made to end a war by people that did not start it, the other to further one by people who did. Those 2 things can not possibly carry the same weight
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 19:53 - Dec 8 by BlueandTruesince82
The press understandably celebrated and continues to celebrate the an act of great bravery to bring about the end of war not started by those who were involved in it.
Your expectation that they would treat and act by an aggressive nation in the same way is, strange..That's the only way i describe it.
If someone breaks into your house and punches you and you punch them back would you expect your character to be painted the same way as said burgler? Should you be held to the same standard as them?
In your scenario one act is made to end a war by people that did not start it, the other to further one by people who did. Those 2 things can not possibly carry the same weight
Wars are started by crazy leaders, very rarely by the populace at large and thus to say they are fair game because their nation was the aggressor is a simplistic way of looking at things in my opinion.
In all your examples so far you've cited "aggressor" and "defender" or "them" and "us" and it's far more nuanced than that in reality.
That doesn't mean the pilots who undertook raids weren't brave and they should be celebrated as such. They are rightly celebrated and will continue to be.
SB
0
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 20:50 - Dec 8 with 2322 views
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 20:03 - Dec 8 by StokieBlue
Wars are started by crazy leaders, very rarely by the populace at large and thus to say they are fair game because their nation was the aggressor is a simplistic way of looking at things in my opinion.
In all your examples so far you've cited "aggressor" and "defender" or "them" and "us" and it's far more nuanced than that in reality.
That doesn't mean the pilots who undertook raids weren't brave and they should be celebrated as such. They are rightly celebrated and will continue to be.
SB
It is more nuanced than that, one must consider the political air of the time, attitudes etc but only to a point. In each instance I have cited that aggressor has already committed atrocities and continues to try and do so. By your argument an attacked nation should not not do all it can to defend itself, should not do all it can to try to end a war it or they didn't start. I have only cited those instances because they are the comparisons given by the other poster and if you want to talk about nuance, in times of war and in both instances cited the utter desperation of 'Us' one cannot sit there and fanny around over morality. Morality goes out the window the minute the other side starts committing war crimes. You cannot defend genocide nor apply the same weight to acts of an aggressive nation to those of a defensive one which is exactly what the other poster was suggesting, I add in the current instances, so far as we have seen, Ukriane has committed no war crimes which makes the other posters point even more wrong. Not that I am suggesting the dam busters raid was one because as we know it was carried out with the aim of expediting the end of a war and the march of a racist genocidal maniac, literally hell bent on world domination.
Essentially your own logic means every time someone gets in a fight, even if (or by your logic, specifically if) they didn't start it they should have to then fight with one hand behind their back, whilst whoever snuck up and sucker punched them gets both hands and a knife. It's a ridiculous notion.
No, most people who take part in wars didn't start them, though ot should be noted that Hitler was elected and thre was much support for the war and whilst Putins elections are far more questionable to say the least he remained popular in Russia until the mobilisation. Now I'll admit some of that is down to state sponsored propaganda but none furthermore his attacks on Georgia and Crimea were generally supported. The deal in Russia has long been the people won't make a fuss provided they can go about daily life. Finally yes, it is a shame that people on any side are sent to wars started by leaders and unfortunate that some people get sent to a war they never wanted starting in the first place but that cannot mean a a defending nation must play fair when the aggressor does not
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 20:50 - Dec 8 by BlueandTruesince82
It is more nuanced than that, one must consider the political air of the time, attitudes etc but only to a point. In each instance I have cited that aggressor has already committed atrocities and continues to try and do so. By your argument an attacked nation should not not do all it can to defend itself, should not do all it can to try to end a war it or they didn't start. I have only cited those instances because they are the comparisons given by the other poster and if you want to talk about nuance, in times of war and in both instances cited the utter desperation of 'Us' one cannot sit there and fanny around over morality. Morality goes out the window the minute the other side starts committing war crimes. You cannot defend genocide nor apply the same weight to acts of an aggressive nation to those of a defensive one which is exactly what the other poster was suggesting, I add in the current instances, so far as we have seen, Ukriane has committed no war crimes which makes the other posters point even more wrong. Not that I am suggesting the dam busters raid was one because as we know it was carried out with the aim of expediting the end of a war and the march of a racist genocidal maniac, literally hell bent on world domination.
Essentially your own logic means every time someone gets in a fight, even if (or by your logic, specifically if) they didn't start it they should have to then fight with one hand behind their back, whilst whoever snuck up and sucker punched them gets both hands and a knife. It's a ridiculous notion.
No, most people who take part in wars didn't start them, though ot should be noted that Hitler was elected and thre was much support for the war and whilst Putins elections are far more questionable to say the least he remained popular in Russia until the mobilisation. Now I'll admit some of that is down to state sponsored propaganda but none furthermore his attacks on Georgia and Crimea were generally supported. The deal in Russia has long been the people won't make a fuss provided they can go about daily life. Finally yes, it is a shame that people on any side are sent to wars started by leaders and unfortunate that some people get sent to a war they never wanted starting in the first place but that cannot mean a a defending nation must play fair when the aggressor does not
[Post edited 8 Dec 2022 20:56]
Whilst I fully understand that some things are simply required during war (for instance one can make a decent case for the bombings of Japan), that doesn't mean one can't debate the rights and wrongs of what happened.
It doesn't take away from the legacy of the aircrews which is what you seem to be concerned about, nowhere have I said that it does.
"one cannot sit there and fanny around over morality. Morality goes out the window the minute the other side starts committing war crimes."
I don't really agree with this, what hopefully separates us from the opposition in most (modern) wars is that we shouldn't throw morality out of the window otherwise how are we any better than the aggressors? Two wrongs don't make a right and what is one fighting to preserve if they react to war crimes with war crimes?
I fully understand WW2 has a very specific context around it and that needs to be considered in the above, I am however more talking in the general case.
Once again, I am not taking anything away from the aircrews who did their jobs bravely and admirably and are rightfully celebrated.
SB
[Post edited 9 Dec 2022 8:11]
1
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 09:12 - Dec 9 with 2078 views
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 07:59 - Dec 9 by StokieBlue
Whilst I fully understand that some things are simply required during war (for instance one can make a decent case for the bombings of Japan), that doesn't mean one can't debate the rights and wrongs of what happened.
It doesn't take away from the legacy of the aircrews which is what you seem to be concerned about, nowhere have I said that it does.
"one cannot sit there and fanny around over morality. Morality goes out the window the minute the other side starts committing war crimes."
I don't really agree with this, what hopefully separates us from the opposition in most (modern) wars is that we shouldn't throw morality out of the window otherwise how are we any better than the aggressors? Two wrongs don't make a right and what is one fighting to preserve if they react to war crimes with war crimes?
I fully understand WW2 has a very specific context around it and that needs to be considered in the above, I am however more talking in the general case.
Once again, I am not taking anything away from the aircrews who did their jobs bravely and admirably and are rightfully celebrated.
SB
[Post edited 9 Dec 2022 8:11]
So what you are saying is if you were a war time leader and the opposition was murdering millions of people, including your own people, your own civilians and those of your allies and you could approve mission that may help bring and end to that war you wouldn't do so, in case it was perceived in the wrong way.
Meanwhile tne aggressor continues it murderous rampage and thousands, maybe 10s of thousands, maybe 100s of thousands, maybe millions of people continue to die.
To describe the dambuster raid as having a decent case is one of the biggest understatements in history and the suggestion that an act aimed at ending the ambitions of a mass murder waging war and genocide on an industrial scale needs any justification is again plain wrong.
You are right, modern warfare hopefully means that for the most part civilian casualties are minimised but nowhere have I suggested otherwise nor advocated attacking civilians targets for the sake of it. The poster that I was responding to suggested the if Putin attacked civilian targets (which he has btw) his actions should be seen as no different to that of the dambusters raid , I say and this had been the point of every response of mine on this thread (bar where I have had to unravel some serious mental gymnastics from the both of you to apparently justify the ambitions of a murderous megalomaniac) has been to make that point.
it should also be noted that the Ukrainain war is not being fort in a particular modern way, there are clear lines trenches, attentional inch by inch warfare despite the more modern equipment being used in certain aspects.
What is one fighting to preserve? ones nation, culture, freedom, the lives of its people, democracy and a few other things.
Let me know when someone comes to suckerounch you and I will come and tie one of your hands up and ha d the other fella a knife and afterwards I'm sure you'll be amiable to pleasant chat about morality and extremely forgiving towards both myself and your aggressor.
Or we can agree that Putin attacking civilians should not be viewed as anything akin to a simar light as the dambuster operation (or similar) and move on, it is not history's view of the dambusters that is my main concern history already judges them quite correctly, it is the suggestion that a similar act by Putin could or should be seen in the same way as the dambusters raid, which does quite clearly ignore all nuance that you are so concerned with, I think that is pretty clear.
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 09:12 - Dec 9 by BlueandTruesince82
So what you are saying is if you were a war time leader and the opposition was murdering millions of people, including your own people, your own civilians and those of your allies and you could approve mission that may help bring and end to that war you wouldn't do so, in case it was perceived in the wrong way.
Meanwhile tne aggressor continues it murderous rampage and thousands, maybe 10s of thousands, maybe 100s of thousands, maybe millions of people continue to die.
To describe the dambuster raid as having a decent case is one of the biggest understatements in history and the suggestion that an act aimed at ending the ambitions of a mass murder waging war and genocide on an industrial scale needs any justification is again plain wrong.
You are right, modern warfare hopefully means that for the most part civilian casualties are minimised but nowhere have I suggested otherwise nor advocated attacking civilians targets for the sake of it. The poster that I was responding to suggested the if Putin attacked civilian targets (which he has btw) his actions should be seen as no different to that of the dambusters raid , I say and this had been the point of every response of mine on this thread (bar where I have had to unravel some serious mental gymnastics from the both of you to apparently justify the ambitions of a murderous megalomaniac) has been to make that point.
it should also be noted that the Ukrainain war is not being fort in a particular modern way, there are clear lines trenches, attentional inch by inch warfare despite the more modern equipment being used in certain aspects.
What is one fighting to preserve? ones nation, culture, freedom, the lives of its people, democracy and a few other things.
Let me know when someone comes to suckerounch you and I will come and tie one of your hands up and ha d the other fella a knife and afterwards I'm sure you'll be amiable to pleasant chat about morality and extremely forgiving towards both myself and your aggressor.
Or we can agree that Putin attacking civilians should not be viewed as anything akin to a simar light as the dambuster operation (or similar) and move on, it is not history's view of the dambusters that is my main concern history already judges them quite correctly, it is the suggestion that a similar act by Putin could or should be seen in the same way as the dambusters raid, which does quite clearly ignore all nuance that you are so concerned with, I think that is pretty clear.
[Post edited 9 Dec 2022 9:19]
Neither of my post mentioned specific raids or the Ukrainian war, my points were more general that just because someone is an aggressor it doesn't make everyone in their territories fair game. I didn't particularly think the language or examples you were using were appropriate.
You've chosen to go into specifics without trying to see my point which was wider and centred around the fact that one should try their best not to lose their morality just because the other side have.
I'm going to leave it there, enjoy your day.
SB
0
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 09:36 - Dec 9 with 2024 views
RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 09:24 - Dec 9 by StokieBlue
Neither of my post mentioned specific raids or the Ukrainian war, my points were more general that just because someone is an aggressor it doesn't make everyone in their territories fair game. I didn't particularly think the language or examples you were using were appropriate.
You've chosen to go into specifics without trying to see my point which was wider and centred around the fact that one should try their best not to lose their morality just because the other side have.
I'm going to leave it there, enjoy your day.
SB
No, you have tried to support the argument that a defensive act carries the same weight as on offensive one and that a civilian attack by Russia should be seen in the same light as the dambuster raid.
I have had to go into specifics to illustrate why both your and Crawrfords moral stance is quite misguided and expand where you have then tried to twist away from that and still make a case for you being correct instead of just agreeing that a civilian attack by putin should not be viewed through the same lense as the dambuster operation. I am simply adding meat to the bone of my argument as opposed to leaving a carcass of argument that has no leg to support it. Crawford, who I was responding to drew the comparable of Putin and the Dambusters and so, as I have already said, I have continued with that because that is the context of the debate.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
