what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[coley]

Yeh their behaviour in Northern Ireland was exemplary, really turned it out around there.

"I wouldn't even begin to say we are perfect but in situations where armed forces are put into seriously difficult positions,then I think our behaviour, though lacking on occasion, is better than most"

Now NI isn't perfect but it's one helluva improvement on the place I remember from 69/75.

 

[N_igma]

You said Kenya was a turning point but it clearly wasn't. The British army murdered its own unarmed citizens in the street hardly the mark of a well disciplined army.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I am not denying that atrocities were committed,they clearly were,but by a generation with a totally different outlook to the ones held by today's or even yesterday's generation.
You are talking about a generation that had just come through one of the bloodiest wars in history and who weren't particularly sensitive towards the human rights issue, to them the idea of meeting force with even more force was perfectly natural.
It was clearly brutal and,in retrospect, a disgrace to the values we hold today and if we had continued, as a society behaving in such a manner then we would have need to be totally ashamed but we didn't.
Documents from that time testify there was a lot of disquiet about the policy's employed at local and colonial level and I believe Kenya was a turning point in how the armed forces behave when deployed in a peacekeeping/insurrection role.
I wouldn't even begin to say we are perfect but in situations where armed forces are put into seriously difficult positions,then I think our behaviour, though lacking on occasion, is better than most.

If the present British state has so much respect for human rights, why has it still not acknowledged culpability for what happened in Kenya?

As to the last point. The main difference between Britain's armed forces and those that depose governments is that the British Army hasn't been put in "seriously difficult positions" of the same order as their counterparts elsewhere.

 

[Pingu]

If the present British state has so much respect for human rights, why has it still not acknowledged culpability for what happened in Kenya?

tbh i don't think anyone here is in a position to answer authoritatively on that one unless the Government is posting .

 

[Lo Siento.]

tbh i don't think anyone here is in a position to answer authoritatively on that one unless the Government is posting .

We could take a good guess though, couldn't we?

 

[Pingu]

we could take a guess but no way of knowing if its cynically damning or rose tintededly benevolant

 

[coley]

If the present British state has so much respect for human rights, why has it still not acknowledged culpability for what happened in Kenya?

As to the last point. The main difference between Britain's armed forces and those that depose governments is that the British Army hasn't been put in "seriously difficult positions" of the same order as their counterparts elsewhere.

Because it wasn't,the government and colonial administration of the time who was culpable and the present govt has paid compensation on that basis.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Because it wasn't,the government and colonial administration of the time who was culpable and the present govt has paid compensation on that basis.

Seriously?

Are you kidding me?

 

[coley]

You said Kenya was a turning point but it clearly wasn't. The British army murdered its own unarmed citizens in the street hardly the mark of a well disciplined army.

Read up on the number of innocent civilians killed by the army in the course of operation banner, one,was one two many, but overall, given the length of time involved and the violence employed by the various republican movements the number is tiny compared to other countries peacekeeping/counter insurgency operations.

 

[coley]

Seriously?

Are you kidding me?

Yes and no

 

[Lo Siento.]

Yes and no

So you are actually going to argue that the British government paying off victims of war crimes to avoid legal liability is an example of its respect for human rights?
Or indeed that states cease to be responsibile for violence committed as soon as the government changes?

Are you kidding me?

 

[coley]

Nope just trying to take a balanced view, how much did we get off Germany for pain,suffering and damage inflicted during WW2?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Read up on the number of innocent civilians killed by the army in the course of operation banner, one,was one two many, but overall, given the length of time involved and the violence employed by the various republican movements the number is tiny compared to other countries peacekeeping/counter insurgency operations.

30 January 1972

 

[Lo Siento.]

Nope just trying to take a balanced view, how much did we get off Germany for pain,suffering and damage inflicted during WW2?

Germany paid considerable compensation for crimes committed under the Nazi dictatorship, running to many billions of pounds. It's still paying in fact. It also established several museums dedicating to exploring, publicising and educating people about past atrocities.

This despite the lack of continuity between the regime that committed those crimes and the one paying for them. Britain on the other hand is still the same political regime as it was in the 1950s and has never done anything of the sort, pays compensation solely as a way of avoiding full legal liability and still has prominent figures in public life (including government) prepared to claim that the British Empire was essentially benign.

 

[Pingu]

Nope just trying to take a balanced view, how much did we get off Germany for pain,suffering and damage inflicted during WW2?

tbf i am still angry that the Angles and the Saxons failed to make any sort of overtures towards reconciliation. once that is sorted I will move on

 

[Pingu]

Germany paid considerable compensation for crimes committed under the Nazi dictatorship, running to many billions of pounds. It's still paying in fact. It also established several museums dedicating to exploring, publicising and educating people about past atrocities.

This despite the lack of continuity between the regime that committed those crimes and the one paying for them. Britain on the other hand is still the same political regime as it was in the 1950s and has never done anything of the sort, pays compensation solely as a way of avoiding full legal liability and still has prominent figures in public life (including government) prepared to claim that the British Empire was essentially benign.

just out of interest, and it is a genuine interest and not just shit stirring, what should be done and who should do it?

 

[coley]

30 January 1972

Aye, most know the date, I was referring to the total number of innocent civilian casualties over the course of the whole operation, when you look at it in that perspective things look slightly different, though I fully understand its easier to highlight one (admittedly terrible) incident and ignore the whole picture, makes it easier to vilify the institution you want to have a dig at.
How many innocent civilians has the police killed in the same time period, without the excuse of operating in a war zone?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Aye, most know the date, I was referring to the total number of innocent civilian casualties over the course of the whole operation, when you look at it in that perspective things look slightly different, though I fully understand its easier to highlight one (admittedly terrible) incident and ignore the whole picture, makes it easier to vilify the institution you want to have a dig at.
How many innocent civilians has the police killed in the same time period, without the excuse of operating in a war zone?

You also have to add those killed by loyalist paramilitaries with UK army help.

 

[Pingu]

You also have to add those killed by loyalist paramilitaries with UK army help.

and for balance the number killed by the IRA and associated organisations?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

and for balance the number killed by the IRA and associated organisations?

We are talking about innocent people murdered with UK army help. That other innocent people were killed by others does not diminish the crime.

ETA: How do you think the nationalist community felt having their streets policed by an army that was also helping the terrorist groups the army was supposed to be there to protect them from? What do you think that did to the conflict? That's a war crime, right there.

 

[Pingu]

not saying that any crimes committed by the UK state in NI are diminished by the acts of otehrs. its just that there is a very one sided view if you take look at just the killings that are down to the army in NI. IIRC the IRA considered NI a war and in any war, sadly, innocents die as well as combatants. you could argue that if it wasnt for the IRA there would have been no need for british troops on the streets of NI and therefore they have to also accept some responsibility for the actions of said troops*

* i also concur that if the british troops hadnt been there in the first place <And acted like right cunts at times> (going all the way back to 1536 and Henrys decision to invade or whenever it originally goes back to - my knowledge of the history of the period isnt great) tbh the IRA wouldnt have been there either and that the statement i made is very simplistic indeed. but the situation in NI is very complex and both sides need to shoulder some of the blame for innocents dying - be that as a result of the armys actions or by being blown up/shot by the IRA

 

[Lo Siento.]

just out of interest, and it is a genuine interest and not just shit stirring, what should be done and who should do it?

I don't think there's anything that could be done by the British state to genuinely compensate the victims of British colonialism. And that's not why I raised it on this thread.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

PInk = Countries Britain has invaded.

 

[butchersapron]

PInk = Countries Britain has invaded.

No its not.

 

[Pingu]

I don't think there's anything that could be done by the British state to genuinely compensate the victims of British colonialism. And that's not why I raised it on this thread.

but the financial reprisals on germany and the fact they have the odd place or two saying that killing people is bad is sufficient? - trying not to misrepresent your post here (and possibly failing) but that is how it reads.

 

[Lo Siento.]

but the financial reprisals on germany and the fact they have the odd place or two saying that killing people is bad is sufficient? - trying not to misrepresent your post here (and possibly failing) but that is how it reads.

I don't see how you could read it that way. Certainly not when I'm responding directly to someone else making a German comparison.

 

[coley]

Germany paid considerable compensation for crimes committed under the Nazi dictatorship, running to many billions of pounds. It's still paying in fact. It also established several museums dedicating to exploring, publicising and educating people about past atrocities.

This despite the lack of continuity between the regime that committed those crimes and the one paying for them. Britain on the other hand is still the same political regime as it was in the 1950s and has never done anything of the sort, pays compensation solely as a way of avoiding full legal liability and still has prominent figures in public life (including government) prepared to claim that the British Empire was essentially benign.

Remind me how much did we get in compensation from G

I don't think there's anything that could be done by the British state to genuinely compensate the victims of British colonialism. And that's not why I raised it on this thread.

Then why did you? While I think its important to acknowledge the mistakes and transgressions of the past it's equally important not to beat yourself over the head with them.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Remind me how much did we get in compensation from G

In lieu of money the British government took forced labour from 400,000 German POWs. For rather obvious geo-political reasons the Allies preferred not to overdo reparations.

Then why did you? While I think its important to acknowledge the mistakes and transgressions of the past it's equally important not to beat yourself over the head with them.

Ha, as if you could accuse any European nation of "beating themselves over the head" for past atrocities!

I raised it as an example of British soldiers complying with immoral orders, in line with the actual content of their oaths, rather than the rather rose-tinted interpretation of it offered by some on here.

 

[brogdale]

My 'loyalty' isn't deeply institutionally in any respect, your arguments don't make any sense on a common sense basis, we take an oath, same as you sign an employment contract, if we find that we are expected to do something that wasn't agreed in the contract we can refuse and follow various lines of arbitration etc.
You will find, I imagine, broadly the same rights and obligations, in any employment contract as in the oath.

With the exception that we accepted the fact we might have to kill people or if we were careless, be killed in turn.

I don't think its very credible to equate a solemn oath pledging loyalty and complete obedience to one family with a voluntary agreement of legal obligations.

I'm finding it hard to imagine how rank & file service-people can be expected, in the heat of action, to evaluate the legality of any particular order and then act according to their understanding of the law....particularly when they have pledged to do exactly as they are told.

For instance, on 30/01/1972 how would the paras under Derek Wilford's command have known that his orders were issued in direct contravention of those issued by his immediate superior?

 

[brogdale]

...and what about our flyers who are told to shoot down passenger airliners if they fail to respond to communications? They'd be following orders, right?