Are Vegetarians Evil?

[Revedge]

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Uh…some vegans adopt that diet because they want to do as little harm to others as possible.
Sailboat
[/QUOTE]

“I’m not a vegetarian because I love animals, I am a vegetarian because I hate plants.”

[FRDE]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Veggies are evil. Their diet gives them extremely nasty flatulence. I have seen veggies empty rooms at work in a flash. Work productivity would increase if veggies were force fed a burger every now and then.
[/QUOTE]

While a well produced Macrobiotic diet is quite tasty, boy does it make you fart.

Vegetarians are evil because they contribute to Global Warming.

[BrightNShiny]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
Soldiers are trained to follow orders.

To a soldier, a huge crowd, armed or unarmed, is a very real threat, and crowds tend to become armed very quickly when they start tearing up roads and walls.

Ever seen a film of soldiers being pulled from cars and literally torn apart ?

It sounds like 50 soldiers fired 1600 rounds, which is 32 rounds per soldier (the other 40 Ghurkas only had kukris). Over 10 minutes we have about 3 shots a minute - or one every 20 seconds. While it improbable that the rate of fire was uniform - it does not sound as if they were blasting away.
[/QUOTE]

Did you even read the article? General Dyer ordered his men to fire at the thickest part of the crowd. They were blasting away.

I reckon that the first few volleys would have been over the crowd’s heads, if the crowd then surged forward, the soldiers would have little choice.

You reckon? You mean you complete made it up. The soliders didn’t fire over anyone’s head. They fired directly at the crowd, under orders from Dyer. In that Wiki artickle, he’s quoted as saying: “I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come bank again and laughed and I would have made, what I consider, a fool of myself.”

Note also that the soldiers were Sikhs and Ghurkas, neither are likely to relish being chased off by a howling mob, and neither are going to allow themselves to be torn limb from limb.

It was a peaceful political demonstration. The only howling was from the people being massacred.

I suspect that the majority of the casualties were simply from being crushed under foot, and the ‘official’ 379 would be accounted for, by examining the bodies for bullet wounds. Put like that, each soldier would have shot to kill about 8 times, possibly fewer if the multiple casualties from one bullet thesis is assumed.

So? Each soldier killed only 8 people? That means what?

Reading the Wicki article, it is pretty clear that the mob had a track record of killing people

No, reading the Wiki article, it’s clear that there were other incidences of violence in the area. The Wiki article does not link anyone at this gathering to the other acts of violencce.

I would say that Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer and his 90 troops had little choice in the matter, and I doubt that many involved lost much sleep over it. They probably regarded themselves as fortunate to be alive.

This is beyond the pale. Dyer admitted he had a choice in the matter!

I suppose my view is coloured, as when I was young, I was told about a relative of mine who was a British officer in Palestine. An angry crowd of Jews were approaching over a bridge, he went forward to reason with them. They stoned him, he died. The family moral of the story is to be wary of mobs, which is why I sympathise with Israeli troops in Ghaza.

Nobody told me what my relative’s troops did, but I should imagine they emptied their magazines into the mob.

We should not judge things from our own context.

Good thing we don’t have to judge them from our own context. We have the Hunter Commission inquiry, made up of Indians and British, which investigated the massacre when it happend. We have the censure from the British parliament and statements from both Indian and British politicians.

I really can’t fathom the morality of someone who defends the massacre of unarmed men, women, and children. I look forward to your defense of the Rape of Nanking and the Trail of Tears. :rolleyes:

[BrightNShiny]

In my last post, the word “bank” in Dyer’s quote should be “back.”

[FRDE]

@BrightNShiny

Well, since the crowd had demonstrated what it could do on the 10th, one could safely assume that Dyer and his Sepoys anticipated a repeat performance.

Assuming that all the casualties were due to bullets (which we know is not true) then his men managed to achieve a remarkably low rate of fire.

I suppose you’ll now bring up Tianneman Square, which was badly handled, but imagine how the USA would have reacted to people building a statue in Times Square or the UK to people doing the same in Trafalgar Square ? They would have sent in riot police and water cannon.

Crowds are dangerous enough when they are not protesting (or cranking up for a riot).

[BrightNShiny]

[QUOTE=FRDE]
@BrightNShiny

Well, since the crowd had demonstrated what it could do on the 10th, one could safely assume that Dyer and his Sepoys anticipated a repeat performance.

Assuming that all the casualties were due to bullets (which we know is not true) then his men managed to achieve a remarkably low rate of fire.

I suppose you’ll now bring up Tianneman Square, which was badly handled, but imagine how the USA would have reacted to people building a statue in Times Square or the UK to people doing the same in Trafalgar Square ? They would have sent in riot police and water cannon.

Crowds are dangerous enough when they are not protesting (or cranking up for a riot).
[/QUOTE]

More made up nonsense, huh? Rather than hijack this thread some more, why don’t you meet me in the pit