what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[butchersapron]

I was quartered in Aldershot at one point, my neighbours were mainly Paras. One of them had killed someone in NI, and still, some years later, had nightmares about it. Even amongst the Paras, who were a damn sight more 'gung ho' than the Medics were, I didn't meet anyone who had specifically joined up to kill people. Had you stated at your initial assessment in the recruiting process, that that was why you wanted to join, you would not have got in.

Maybe some sort of subterfuge would be in order - maybe not saying this was why you wanted to join.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I would not, under any circumstances, have fired on unarmed peaceful protesters, nor do I know anyone who would.

Do you think in these situations your commanding officer comes in and tells you all "right lads, today we're going to murder some unarmed civilian protesters who are no threat to anything"?

In your head is that what the officers in Chile/Spain/Egypt all said before their coup d'etats?

 

[dylanredefined]

I was quartered in Aldershot at one point, my neighbours were mainly Paras. One of them had killed someone in NI, and still, some years later, had nightmares about it. Even amongst the Paras, who were a damn sight more 'gung ho' than the Medics were, I didn't meet anyone who had specifically joined up to kill people. Had you stated at your initial assessment in the recruiting process, that that was why you wanted to join, you would not have got in.

Known several people who claimed to join because they wanted to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and kill someone. All of them weeded out for being useless.
The only person who has even suggested shooting peaceful demonstrators were Iraqis on the grounds they wouldn't come back if we shoot a few.
They didn't seem to understand why we thought this was wrong.

 

[dylanredefined]

How come it happened over and over then?

Mistakes and the odd psycho. Frightfully easy for the mind to play tricks on you and see a gun where there wasn't one.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Do you think in these situations your commanding officer comes in a tells you all "right lads, today we're going to murder some unarmed civilian protesters who are no threat to anything"?

In your head is that what the officers in Chile/Spain/Egypt all said before their coup d'etats?

We don't live in Chile/Spain/Egypt, we live in the UK. Any soldier is perfectly aware of the legality, order or not, in shooting unarmed, peaceful protesters.

Even in a riot situation, you cannot open fire willy nilly, you must be very sure that the person you are firing at is firing at 'you'. Stones and petrol bombs are not in themselves justification for opening fire. If you are in a position where you are going to be overrun by the mob, and you genuinely fear for your life, you may open fire. Which I would have done.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Mistakes and the odd psycho. Frightfully easy for the mind to play tricks on you and see a gun where there wasn't one.

In which case you have to live with the consequences. You might not go to Colchester, but you still have to live with it.

 

[butchersapron]

Mistakes and the odd psycho. Frightfully easy for the mind to play tricks on you and see a gun where there wasn't one.

Just mistakes. Odd how they kept happening over and over in the same way and at the same point - when the interests of the British state or its local allies were threatened. Whole lot of mistakes.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Known several people who claimed to join because they wanted to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and kill someone. All of them weeded out for being useless.
The only person who has even suggested shooting peaceful demonstrators were Iraqis on the grounds they wouldn't come back if we shoot a few.
They didn't seem to understand why we thought this was wrong.

I think that the civilians who are posting on this thread have little grasp of the realities of service. They have never been in the position where they may have to kill another human being. Nor have they seen their colleagues die beside them, then wiped their colleague's blood off their face. They haven't faced a rioting mob, and had to beat out the flames when their breeks are on fire, due to a petrol bomb. To say nothing of being on the receiving end of a rain of broken paving stones and half bricks.

They seem to think that every soldier wants nothing more than the opportunity to kill, whereas it is the last thing that a soldier wants to do. Taking a life is not ever a trivial matter.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I think that the civilians who are posting on this thread have little grasp of the realities of service. They have never been in the position where they may have to kill another human being. Nor have they seen their colleagues die beside them, then wiped their colleague's blood off their face. They haven't faced a rioting mob, and had to beat out the flames when their breeks are on fire, due to a petrol bomb. To say nothing of being on the receiving end of a rain of broken paving stones and half bricks.

They seem to think that every soldier wants nothing more than the opportunity to kill, whereas it is the last thing that a soldier wants to do. Taking a life is not ever a trivial matter.

Have you ever been a member of parliament, Sas?

 

[butchersapron]

I think that the civilians who are posting on this thread have little grasp of the realities of service. They have never been in the position where they may have to kill another human being. Nor have they seen their colleagues die beside them, then wiped their colleague's blood off their face. They haven't faced a rioting mob, and had to beat out the flames when their breeks are on fire, due to a petrol bomb. To say nothing of being on the receiving end of a rain of broken paving stones and half bricks.

They seem to think that every soldier wants nothing more than the opportunity to kill, whereas it is the last thing that a soldier wants to do. Taking a life is not ever a trivial matter.

Don't you believe in civilian oversight of the military then?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Have you ever been a member of parliament, Sas?

What a strange question. I'll answer it though. No.

 

[Lo Siento.]

We don't live in Chile/Spain/Egypt, we live in the UK. Any soldier is perfectly aware of the legality, order or not, in shooting unarmed, peaceful protesters.

Is it your opinion that British soldiers are qualitatively different in nature to soldiers in those armies?

Even in a riot situation, you cannot open fire willy nilly, you must be very sure that the person you are firing at is firing at 'you'. Stones and petrol bombs are not in themselves justification for opening fire. If you are in a position where you are going to be overrun by the mob, and you genuinely fear for your life, you may open fire. Which I would have done.

This doesn't actually contradict the point I've been making throughout this thread.

 

[Lo Siento.]

What a strange question. I'll answer it though. No.

I'd say the implications of the question are pretty obvious, but I'll try to be clearer.

You've expressed lots of opinions on members of parliament, parliament as an institution, political parties over your time here. What qualifies you to assess them as institutions?

 

[Sasaferrato]

I'd say the implications of the question are pretty obvious, but I'll try to be clearer.

You've expressed lots of opinions on members of parliament, parliament as an institution, political parties over your time here. What qualifies you to assess them as institutions?

Their performance. Their regard for the ordinary citizen, their management of the national economy, their maintenance of the national infrastructure and their sense of what is a decent way to behave. On all of the preceding measures, the current government has pretty much failed, as did the government before them.

It is debatable how much parliament should be involved in a fair distribution of the national income, but on this, both this and the preceding government have failed. Where is the inherent decency and honesty, when millions of our citizens are dependent on state handouts simply to exist?

 

[dylanredefined]

Just mistakes. Odd how they kept happening over and over in the same way and at the same point - when the interests of the British state or its local allies were threatened. Whole lot of mistakes.

Unfortunately you put soldiers into those situations and this is what happens.
Either because they make a genuine mistake which no one could have avoided. Their idiots who shouldn't be allowed sharp scissors. Or for some lunatic reason they decide to deliberately shoot when they shouldn't.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Is it your opinion that British soldiers are qualitatively different in nature to soldiers in those armies?



This doesn't actually contradict the point I've been making throughout this thread.

Yes.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Their performance. Their regard for the ordinary citizen, their management of the national economy, their maintenance of the national infrastructure and their sense of what is a decent way to behave. On all of the preceding measures, the current government has pretty much failed, as did the government before them.

It is debatable how much parliament should be involved in a fair distribution of the national income, but on this, both this and the preceding government have failed. Where is the inherent decency and honesty, when millions of our citizens are dependent on state handouts simply to exist?

Amazing!

You have all these opinions and yet you've never served.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Yes.

Well, they're not. Soldiers in all those places - just people - soldiers in Britain - just people.

 

[butchersapron]

Unfortunately you put soldiers into those situations and this is what happens.
Either because they make a genuine mistake which no one could have avoided. Their idiots who shouldn't be allowed sharp scissors. Or for some lunatic reason they decide to deliberately shoot when they shouldn't.

Are you really not going to try and address the question of why these things - the killing of unarmed protesters - happens over and over again at points where the interests of the british state or its local allies are challenged? Really? 3 centuries of the same thing happening over and over at the same point each time - and each time its a mistake? Are there any things that happen so regularly and so predictably over such an extended period that you would be happy to classify away as simply mistakes - and mistakes that no one could have avoided apparently. Have a look at this short list and pay attention to the british army massacres in just this country - were none of them avoidable? And if they were, why did they keep happening?

 

[dylanredefined]

Are you really not going to try and address the question of why these things - the killing of unarmed protesters - happens over and over again at points where the interests of the british state or its local allies are challenged? Really? 3 centuries of the same thing happening over and over at the same point each time - and each time its a mistake? Are there any things that happen so regularly and so predictably over such an extended period that you would be happy to classify away as simply mistakes - and mistakes that no one could have avoided apparently. Have a look at this short list and pay attention to the british army massacres in just this country - were none of them avoidable? And if they were, why did they keep happening?

Pre 20th century I leave that to the historians to answer seems shooting people who didn't want to do what the establishment wanted was fine

The two incidents in NI both done by the Paras while bloody Sunday has been covered , Bally Murphy just seems indefensible one accidental shooting could be excused as a tragedy 14 cannot be. Why they were not dragged in front of the courts is beyond me? Still mostly boils down to idiocy or criminality from either the trigger puller or those above him. Though why after BallyMurphy the paras were not banned from NI I don't know?

 

[butchersapron]

Pre 20th century I leave that to the historians to answer seems shooting people who didn't want to do what the establishment wanted was fine

The two incidents in NI both done by the Paras while bloody Sunday has been covered , Bally Murphy just seems indefensible one accidental shooting could be excused as a tragedy 14 cannot be. Why they were not dragged in front of the courts is beyond me? Still mostly boils down to idiocy or criminality from either the trigger puller or those above him. Though why after BallyMurphy the paras were not banned from NI I don't know?

How about we play the same game again but this on a global level? All mistakes again?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Well, they're not. Soldiers in all those places - just people - soldiers in Britain - just people.

You could not be more wrong were you deliberately trying to be wrong. I've served with US, French, German, Kenyan and Belgian troops. The US arethe only ones of those that come close to UK troops.

Your comparison is bogus of course, the last desperate howl of a lost argument.

 

[Lo Siento.]

You could not be more wrong were you deliberately trying to be wrong. I've served with US, French, German, Kenyan and Belgian troops. The US arethe only ones of those that come close to UK troops.

Do you not think that your opinion on this might be a little partial?

Your comparison is bogus of course, the last desperate howl of a lost argument.

Which comparison is that?

 

[Pickman's model]

You could not be more wrong were you deliberately trying to be wrong. I've served with US, French, German, Kenyan and Belgian troops. The US arethe only ones of those that come close to UK troops.

this is a poor reflection on the personal hygiene of british forces.

 

[dylanredefined]

How about we play the same game again but this on a global level? All mistakes again?

Well with hindsight they all appear to be a combination of idiocy and cruelty of various commanders. No idea what people thought they were achieving.
Just look at the Kenya we have nicked someone's country and now they want it back. Just after having fought ww2 and for some reason instead of
asking and just why should we defend a bunch of rich people who sat out the war in luxury? The British turned into the SS.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How come it happened over and over then?

Most usually, unfortunately, one person panics, and that sets the rest off, especially as gunfire isn't quite as directionally-discernable as tv would have it.
Other times, of course, you have vacuous wastes of life like Lee Clegg thinking he'll shore up his hard-man credentials by opening fire on a vehicle.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is it your opinion that British soldiers are qualitatively different in nature to soldiers in those armies?

I'd say that there's not really much comparison between Egyptian and British troops - the quality of troop will always be better when you don't rely on conscription to fill the shitty jobs, and when you don't set some of your forces to work as a second police service.
I'd also say that with regard to Chile, their general staff is a fair bit more "political" than the British general staff, but that their troops currently (as they no longer use conscription, and don't currently sustain a Junta) aren't that much different except insofar as they get used for overtly political purposes.

As for Spain, I find it hard to make a judgement because the army was (supposedly - I don't know how thoroughgoing it was) reformed post-Franco, and hasn't really seen a major internal or external conflict since then. I like their uniforms, though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just mistakes. Odd how they kept happening over and over in the same way and at the same point - when the interests of the British state or its local allies were threatened. Whole lot of mistakes.

It doesn't help if you issue kit (baton rounds) that are supposed to be deployed only at over a specific distance and in a particular way, and they then get deployed up close and personal. There'd be about a hundred more people alive in the six counties, otherwise.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you really not going to try and address the question of why these things - the killing of unarmed protesters - happens over and over again at points where the interests of the british state or its local allies are challenged? Really? 3 centuries of the same thing happening over and over at the same point each time - and each time its a mistake? Are there any things that happen so regularly and so predictably over such an extended period that you would be happy to classify away as simply mistakes - and mistakes that no one could have avoided apparently. Have a look at this short list and pay attention to the british army massacres in just this country - were none of them avoidable? And if they were, why did they keep happening?

Because many of them, especially colonial-era massacres, weren't mistake, they were policy.

 

[brogdale]

Not even going there, you argument has been that the British Army is a bunch of royalists who have an unswerving belief in their obligation to primarily defend the royal family through an archaic oath to the queen and crown and who would be prepared to put down the masses in order to do so, even to destroy airliners who posed a threat to buck house!
I have being replying in the hope you had some form of cohesive argument lined up?
Haddaway back to your game boy or PS 3 or whatever electronic toy is today's fad.

OK, so you don't want to consider Saville's findings of an incident when UK forces fulfilled their oath, followed orders and shot dead unarmed civilians. I can appreciate why you would seek to dodge that.

My "cohesive argument" appears to be one that you find challenging. Those swearing the oath are committed to follow all orders, and you insist that you would not follow what you consider to be illegal ones. I'll ask again; is it actually illegal to down a passenger jet failing to respond to warnings; is it illegal to fire upon unarmed civilians breaking down the gates of Buckingham Palace and is it illegal to strike-break?

Do you actually know the definitive answers to these orders that a service-person would have sworn to follow?