Wootton Bassett

Remove all ads!

Those of you not familiar (which I imagine most of you are not) Wootton Bassett is a town in the UK which is known for honouring our war dead, as most are flown into RAF Lyneham they are usually taken through the town where people gather to pay their respects, it has just jumped into the news as an extreme islamic group plans to march along the very street where the hearses are taken claiming that they are doing it for

it is obvious the real reason for the march is to stir hatred, as they will look good in the eyes of potential fanatics for either:

> being refused which they will jump on a bandwagon of "oppressing their freedom"
> marching without protests so potential fanatics can see some kinf od victory
> being opposed and protested against possibly involving violence which they will say shows Britains hatred for Islam.

I cant see any other reason for the march especially for where its being held, as if it really were to protest Britains war activity London would be a much better place to do it.

some links to the story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...war-heroes-town-Wootton-Bassett.html?ITO=1490

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100102/tuk-wootton-bassett-defiant-over-islamic-dba1618.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8437658.stm

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Wootton-Bassett-in-Islamic-march.5952091.jp

 

Think this poem is probably the simplest (and perhaps best) response:

 

Soldiers are usually the first ones to take away the aforementioned freedoms as well.

 

You beat me to it Morgoroth. Way more common for soldiers to take away those things than to give them.

 

@Tarrasque

Erm, some notes on that poem. For the Dutch, freedom of religion mainly came in the 16th century with our war of independence against the Spanish. There were no soldiers then, but mercenaries who simply fought for the money. Nor was our right to vote granted to us by soldiers, but by politicians (and the king) in the 19th century. So I guess that most of those lines are not valid for me and my fellow Dutchmen.

I suppose one is also not going to claim that the soldier gave the minorities (e.g. black population in South Africa, Native American in the Americas) the right to vote? If I recall correctly it were the soldiers who desperately tried to keep these apartheids alive. Because that were their orders. Were it not also the soldiers who murdered millions of people during the Nippon invasion of China? Were it not the soldiers who put the Jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals and the handicapped on the trains to their deaths?

The soldier is not something to be merely idealised, it is a tool that can be used for both good and evil.

OT:
Are these the same morons behind this?

 

Morgoroth you are VERY wrong about that -- and the little smiley doesn't mitigate such a prejudiced comment. It is the political leaders who take away freedoms and use the military to do their dirty work.

Shoshino, we have a number of groups who protest various perceived sins by desecrating the services of our fallen soldiers. Such demonstrations are the price for a free society.

 

I think my point has been missed, that there is no purpose to this march other then to incite religious/racial hatred, which is against the law

 

@T2

Then obviously the opposite must also be true, the political leaders give us our freedoms and only use the military to do their dirty work.

My comment was mostly a sarcastic reaction to the militaristic overtones of the aforementioned poem, which more or less describes the military as the backbone of society and democracy, which in my opinion could not be more wrong.

I fail to see what exactly you saw as prejudiced though, simply stating the fact that the military has been quite active in working against democracy and establishing dictatorships and juntas as well as committing horrid war crimes and genocides? If you give soldiers all the credit then you should be prepared to give them all the blame as well.

According to what I've read from the bbc article the organizers of the march seem to disagree with you.

 

directly maybe, theyre not actually standing in the street shouting death chants, but indirectly you can see the purpose of the whole thing.

the BBC article also states that they havent petitioned the police for permission to march, so they probably have no intention of actually holding a march, only causing the public outcry that has been seen.

 

No Morgoroth, freedoms are won by the people. Political leaders do not give them to us.

The poem Tarrasque quoted has roots that are quite old. Granted, it's a bit overboard but it was certainly the soldier who stopped the invasions during WWI and WWII. You can credit the efforts of fighting men of those two generations for maintaining democracy and keeping the freedoms we treasure (at least in the US) intact. In the US those freedoms listed were written by politicians, but ultimately they were won through the sacrifice of men on the field of battle.

I do not deny that there have been members of various militaries who have allowed their actions to be dictated by their own prejudices. Nor do I deny that there have been military leaders who have violated their positions of trust to rise in power and wealth. But these are criminal acts and to lump all of these things to simply state "the military is responsible" is overly simplistic to the point of stereotyping (which is a form of prejudice).

 

With this I fully agree. My previous comment was once again more or less sarcastic so I'm sorry if it did not come across as such.

I don't agree fully with you about WWI (what invasion did they exactly stop there?) but I'll give you WWII. There are obviously occasions when arms are required to defend democracy, usually though that often involves other soldiers crossing your border. These soldiers though are drafted from the general population, and it is the people as you said who safeguard democracy and civilized society. In other cases, being a soldier is more or less a career choice and really deserves no more respect than being a police officer, fireman, pilot, teacher, accountant, lawyer etc. That is at least the way I see it.

 

No more respect than accountants and lawyers? There was no need to be vicious here.

The average military member makes far less than any of those professions you listed, works far more hours, must be ready to deploy and leave their families on a moments notice, and be willing to go into harms way. While I would agree with lumping firemen and police officers in that group, very few other occupations require that kind of commitment and sacrifice -- I personally deem such traits worthy of added respect.

 

It all depends on whether their cause is just and I am sure most soldiers deem their cause to be just or else they wouldn't fight it. That means that a war is fought between two groups of soldier both worthy of respect and both convinced that their cause is just and the other isn't. If no one was willing to be a soldier no soldiers would be needed. Old discussion though but an interesting one. Personally, I do not respect soldiers it is one of the career choices I respect the least because generally they have little to no say in whether their cause is just and they are when all things are considered people who are willing to kill because someone tells them to or because they are convinced they are good and the people they kill are evil. Only if they are lucky is that the case and as I see it you can't respect soldiers from one country or culture without respecting soldiers from another. I doubt there was much difference between a 20 year old German soldier and a 20 year old British soldier in 1939 that made one evil and the other good.

 

I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to march. Are you a free country or not? They have as much right to commemorate the civilians killed in the war as you do the soldiers.

That they're otherwise a bunch of dangerous fanatics means nothing. Even if they wanted to hold an angry anti-military protest there, that's still their right. Or do you only want free speech for speech you agree with...?

 

joacqin, I believe those who serve willingly, faithfully and honorably deserve respect. It does not matter the country they serve in. One of my favorite books is "The Eagle Has Landed" -- an excellent book which had honorable men serve on both sides of a conflict. A person can be my enemy and still be worthy of respect (a relationship which was most famously epitomized by Patton and Rommel).

We've discussed this before -- it is a fantasy ... utopia ... a noble pursuit, but not realistic. I'm afraid I've become too much a cynic to believe such a world could exist.

 

That's an excellent point, Aik. I'm all for free speech but I also believe that everyone should be expected to show respect for others. By that I mean that if Christians or even secularists were to hold a march commemorating all the people killed by Islamic terrorists during Ramadan, there would be a huge complaint, especially if the march wound its way past all of the major mosques of the city.

I say they should be encouraged to have their march either in a different location or at a different time. However, as long as they follow the laws for public demonstrations, it looks as though they have the right to march beside the others. But they should expect the rest of the citizens to give them the cold shoulder should they engage in such disrespectful behaviour.

 

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the situation. Choosing Wootton Bassett will clearly stir up trouble, whether it was their intention or not.

I was looking at a Facebook group today, set up against the march. The wall posts were pretty ignorant, including sentiments such as "bomb the lot of em". It was so ridiculous it bordered on funny.