coley
Well-Known Member
More MI5 than the green army however it's hard to sort out who did what to whom given the various organisations involved and and infiltration and collusion between the UDF and RUC.
what no annual poppy bunfight thread?
- Thread starter Pingu
- Start date
More MI5 than the green army however it's hard to sort out who did what to whom given the various organisations involved and and infiltration and collusion between the UDF and RUC.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
...or strike-breaking? That legal?
And ultimately...you'd fire on your own people if they somehow threatened the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family?
And ultimately...you'd fire on your own people if they somehow threatened the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family?
coley
Well-Known Member
So,you'd rather an airliner was deliberately crashed into, say Brixton, than destroyed over open water? Some here are losing the plot.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
You think they wouldn't down one over the suburbs to save the seat of the state?
coley
Well-Known Member
You are getting into fantasy land now.
coley
Well-Known Member
The moving food and supplies to protect the general public isn't strike breaking, if the Army had been sent down the pit to mine coal now that would be strike breaking.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Breaking strikes under the guise of protecting the public is strike-breaking. That's why they wrote it to sound like it's a general good for society. Use your loaf ffs.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
I was struggling a second ago to define where exactly it is that we part ways, but this is essentially it.
I think you're naive if you think that the government wouldn't prioritise defending the state over the safety and well-being of the citizens. Not only is it there in black and white in the oath you pledge, but it's also what most senior politicians and forces officials would say if pressed.
coley
Well-Known Member
You seem to think that people in the armed forces would protect the establishment versus the general public because of the archaic wording of our terms of employment? That all squaddies are fervent royalists ?
That the RAF would see thousands killed in order to protect the queen?
Your losing it.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Didn't we have a lovely time the day we went to derry.I'm not sure who wouldn't want to shoot at the general public if given half a chance?
You clown.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Just been to the supermarket all ways makes me think some people need culling
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
No, I think they'd follow the orders they were given. Don't you?
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
You sound like a man who's never really thought through the implications of that oath you swore.
coley
Well-Known Member
Course I have and I and most who took it would interpret it as a commitment to the general public, personified by the current head of state.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Setting aside the fact that you can't speak for "most" oath-takers, why would you interpret it like that when it's quite explicit what those swearing it are committed to. Faced with a "choice" between the people and the monarchy, you pledged to fire upon the people. That's why they employed you.
coley
Well-Known Member
It would depend on the circumstances, say the coalition got badly beaten by labour but refused to give up power and there followed riots and mass protests I doubt the Army would be involved,but if it was, I think the first time it was ordered to use violence would be when open mutiny would break out.
People seem to forget the armed forces are mainly comprised of the WC, not some elitist section of society.
coley
Well-Known Member
You do understand the term archaic ?
Nobody takes it as a solemn commitment to defend the royal family against the rabble, I can't understand why you and others seek to define it as a literal commitment to do so.
coley
Well-Known Member
Oh aye, and most of the oath takers knew and know would laugh their arses off at your beliefs.
Pingu
Credo
The Army as an organisation claims and expects your total allegiance without reservation. It enters into every aspect of your life. It invades the privacy of your home life, it fragments your family and friends, in other words claims your total allegiance.
Another important aspect all potential volunteers should think about is their ability to obey orders from a superior officer. All volunteers must obey orders issued to them by a superior officer whether they like the particular officer or not.
Another important aspect all potential volunteers should think about is their ability to obey orders from a superior officer. All volunteers must obey orders issued to them by a superior officer whether they like the particular officer or not.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
...or, arguably more importantly, the order.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Thought not; so "archaic" has limited application really.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
I'm not sure what that has to do with the example we were just discussing. But anyway...
I think it's unlikely you'd ever have a constitutional crisis that was as clear cut as that. But if you did the the army as an institution would act to defend the interests of the state (that's what it means when you're an "apolitical" arm of the state). What exactly that meant would depend on the exact context.
Last edited:
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
The Armed forces have traditions dating back hundreds of years. Well the navy and the Army does. The Air force just has nasty habits.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Speaking for others again.
What was it that you "knew"? And what "beliefs" of mine (that you claim to know) make you laugh?
Are you saying that the UK state would not use the military against the people, or break strikes? Or are you saying that you would refuse to obey such an order? Are you sure that its illegal for a soldier to break a strike?
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Soldiers involved in repressing their own population are never told that what they're doing is a matter of the state versus the people (or the working class or whatever), they're told they're defending the nation. It's part of their "neutrality".
Refusing to follow orders because you agree with a group of protesters/strikers/whoever would be political/taking sides.
Even if you don't believe that, can guarantee sas does/did.
coley
Well-Known Member
Speaking for others again.
What was it that you "knew"? And what "beliefs" of mine (that you claim to know) make you laugh?
Are you saying that the UK state would not use the military against the people, or break strikes? Or are you saying that you would refuse to obey such an order? Are you sure that its illegal for a soldier to break a strike?
Whey I was in the Army, my two sons have 35 years service between them, so I have some background regarding the 'oathtakers' and your belief that we/ those who take the oath,take it literally is frankly laughable.
As for the state to use the military to " break strikes" that's, as I have said earlier, a very thin line, yes they would make sure essential supplies and services were maintained, beyond that I would imagine all sorts of 'logistical problems' would start to emerge.
Just out of curiosity,how old were you in 72?
Similar threads
- Poll
