what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[coley]

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?

I don't find you cohesive, challenging or even interesting, sorry.

 

[8ball]

Odd that you should dodge such questions in that case.

 

[coley]

Odd that you should dodge such questions in that case.

Never dodged a direct question but can't be bothered with goal post manoeuvring executives

 

[toggle]

Interestingly, the same piece of human waste was responsible for counter-insurgency operations in Kenya, as was responsible for them in Northern Ireland in the late '80s/early '70s -Frank Kitson. Kitson's ideas on how to deal with "low level insurgency" informed British military policy, and arguably fucked up a lot of people, and cost an awful number of non-combatants their lives, too.

but was able to give the appearance of getting stuff done to the chattering classes?

 

[toggle]

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.

Seems to me that joe squaddie dosen't give much of a fuck. officers are somethign different? far more expectation they will play the political games? if i understand what a my freind was telling me.

 

[brogdale]

Never dodged a direct question but can't be bothered with goal post manoeuvring executives

With the exception of these, that is...

Not possible for ........ republicans or anyone who can imagine an order they might feel morally bound to disobey, to join, then?

What about a patriot that would like to join the armed forces who happens to believe that the "UK" would be better organised as a republic?

And what about anyone who is cognisant of the dangers of unquestioningly obeying orders? Do these folk have an alternative oath, or are they just not welcome to join?

why the oath hasn't ever been amended to include the word "legal" between the words "all" and 'orders".

Which, once again, kinda begs the question about the wording of the oath. If service personnel, from the very outset of their induction, are expected to interpret the legality of orders they are given, and act according to the LOAC, why would the solemn oath commit them to the very opposite?

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?

...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?

...or strike-breaking? That legal?

And ultimately...you'd fire on your own people if they somehow threatened the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family?

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?

I was talking about the findings of the Saville enquiry; do you dispute them?

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?

So much goal-post moving!

 

[likesfish]

I think savillie found there was no "plan" that involved shooting protestors.
Just a suggestion if they started something they were too be dealt with frimly.
Add a couple of nutters from support company who wanted to find out what it was to like to kill someone
Then bad things happen really fast.
a failure to investigate and charge the guilty bastards due to a relutance to charge soldiers while people are trying to kill them made everything worse.

 

[brogdale]

I think savillie found there was no "plan" that involved shooting protestors.
Just a suggestion if they started something they were too be dealt with frimly.
Add a couple of nutters from support company who wanted to find out what it was to like to kill someone
Then bad things happen really fast.
a failure to investigate and charge the guilty bastards due to a relutance to charge soldiers while people are trying to kill them made everything worse.

Yep, but they were following orders, (as their oath committed them to), but those orders happened to be unauthorised and, therefore illegal.

Saville said British soldiers should not have been ordered to enter the Bogside area as "Colonel Wilford either deliberately disobeyed Brigadier MacLellan’s order or failed for no good reason to appreciate the clear limits on what he had been authorised to do".[14] The report stated five British soldiers aimed shots at civilians they knew did not pose a threat and two other British soldiers shot at civilians "in the belief that they might have identified gunmen, but without being certain that this was the case"

 

[likesfish]

At squaddie level that order would appear to be legal and not completely out of the question.
As for example on exercise told to set up an observation post in turkish controlled northern cyprus
Plainly illegal and or insane Or a certain officers "plan" that involved taking on an ira machine gun nest in belfast with machine guns rockets launchers and grenades on a saturday afternoon.
That plan was listened to the toops loaded up got to the drop off point when ncos called a halt to the insanity and everyone went home for tea and said Lt had his medication increased

 

[coley]

With the exception of these, that is...

All answered by me or others, not my responsibility if you don't comprehend or like the answers.

 

[brogdale]

Shame really, I would have been interested to hear your views...but never mind.

 

[brogdale]

At squaddie level that order would appear to be legal and not completely out of the question.

Yeah, but that was (partly) the point that I was attempting to explore with Coley & Sas. Their contention was that the Oath needed no revision because any one given service-person would be able to discern an illegal order and refuse to obey it.

 

[coley]

Yeah, but that was (partly) the point that I was attempting to explore with Coley & Sas. Their contention was that the Oath needed no revision because any one given service-person would be able to discern an illegal order and refuse to obey it.

Your lack of comprehension is worse than I suspected, I said earlier that I couldn't imagine anyone in the services objecting to a change in the wording, your assertion that we would all obey every order unthinkingly because we had taken the oath is childishly simple.

 

[likesfish]

Yeah, but that was (partly) the point that I was attempting to explore with Coley & Sas. Their contention was that the Oath needed no revision because any one given service-person would be able to discern an illegal order and refuse to obey it.

In a situation like that parachute regiment has been deployed to aid the civil power stopping riots and the like. stopping riots in one part of londonderry or another seems perfectly legal. unless you were at the briefing that the brigadier gave which is far from normal you wouldnt know that there was a limit to where you were suppoused to go.
Bit like the hooding of prisoners in iraq apprantly it was illegal and had been banned in the 70s in northern ireland.
Unfortunatly nobody had been told it was illegal
Was common practice on exercise and in resistance to interogation/escape and evasion exercises. Given the chances of being captured by enemies of the uk who were unlikely to play by the geneva conventition . People playing the capturing were encourged to push the boundarys or just play hostel. Being water boarded or just having your head held underwater till you start drowning is unpleasant in the extreme. Fake executions having dogs inches from your face were all fair game ( more scared that the pratts would fuck it up than intentionally hurt you). then let people who thought that was a right larf loose in iraq with no better training shit is going to happen.
Proper interrogators knew what they were doing the infantry not so much

 

[Pickman's model]

Never dodged a direct question but can't be bothered with goal post manoeuvring executives

you're right. you've not dodged one direct question, you've dodged round a dozen.

 

[coley]

you're right. you've not dodged one direct question, you've dodged round a dozen.

Nope, all answered,mebbes if he cut the slavver and asked a direct unambiguous question instead of trying to hide his agenda?

 

[Pickman's model]

Nope, all answered,mebbes if he cut the slavver and asked a direct unambiguous question instead of trying to hide his agenda?

why don't you answer each of his questions in turn? and then we can all move on.

 

[ViolentPanda]

but was able to give the appearance of getting stuff done to the chattering classes?

Quite, and more importantly silenced the political class and helped deter them from scrutinising what was being done, especially with regard to the assistance to (and sometimes manufacture of) loyalist terrorism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

I suggest you read, alongside the oath, Queens' regulations, and the British Army's standard RoE.
What you should be asking, but seemingly won't (perhaps you have antipathy toward the military?) is: "Is it legal for a pilot to refuse to shoot down a passenger jet/fire upon unarmed civilians/strike-break?". If you did, you might get constructive answers.
The answers, by the way, are:
1) Yes, it's legal for a pilot to refuse such an order (although it's also the case that pilots are trained to depersonalise what they do, which makes them more liable to carry out their mission regardless of legality - that and because they're floppy-haired cunts).
2) It's legal for a soldier to refuse to open fire on unarmed civilians. There's a measure of "proportionate response" expected in orders, so an officer issuing such an order if there were no imminent threat wouldn't be acting within the boundaries of their responsibilities.
3) It's legal for a soldier to strike-break if, and only if, the strike-break threatens lives and safety, hence the breaking of fire strikes. The use of soldiers in the various large-scale strikes in the first half of the 20th century, while not illegal, was certainly a misuse of manpower, and an illustration of just how interlinked the Establishment and the military were.

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

Given the legal system there aren't "definitive" answers, only what happens case by case, and the applicability of a "conscience clause" to the actions of an individual.

 

[8ball]

Given the military legal system there aren't "definitive" answers, only what happens case by case, and the applicability of a "conscience clause" to the actions of an individual.

I'm still not sure whether that means it's fine wipe out a wedding party by launching a missile from something that you are piloting with an Xbox controller.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm still not sure whether that means it's fine wipe out a wedding party by launching a missile from something that you are piloting with an Xbox controller.

That's because you're thinking in terms of unitary situations. None of those situations exist in a legal or moral vacuum, though. You can't judge the action unless you explore the contexts of the situation, so saying "a wedding party" is meaningless, whereas saying "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with no known ties to terrorists" isn't.

 

[8ball]

That's because you're thinking in terms of unitary situations. None of those situations exist in a legal or moral vacuum, though. You can't judge the action unless you explore the contexts of the situation, so saying "a wedding party" is meaningless, whereas saying "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with no known ties to terrorists" isn't.

How about "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with suspected ties to terrorists".

I'm always a bit fuzzy on the niceties of extrajudicial executions...

 

[coley]

How about "a wedding party of unarmed civilians with suspected ties to terrorists".

I'm always a bit fuzzy on the niceties of extrajudicial executions...

When have we attacked a wedding party?

 

[8ball]

When have we attacked a wedding party?

That wasn't meant to be an example specific to the British Army - I was thinking of the US drone strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan.

 

[coley]

That wasn't meant to be an example specific to the British Army - I was thinking of the US drone strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan.

Bomb any bugger those lot.

 

[Pickman's model]

When have we attacked a wedding party?

i'm sure we were rude about william and kate

 

[8ball]

Bomb any bugger those lot.

They're still supposed to have similar rules on illegal orders, though, I believe.

 

[coley]

They're still supposed to have similar rules on illegal orders, though, I believe.

Supposed too, but I would suggest over the years we have become pretty good at 'playing within the rules' whereas they just pay nominal lip service to them.

 

[Pickman's model]

Supposed too, but I would suggest over the years we have become pretty good at 'playing within the rules' whereas they just pay nominal lip service to them.

that's because 'we' make the rules and 'we' interpret the rules and many things 'we''d be livid about if they did them are within 'our' rules.

 

[dylanredefined]

That wasn't meant to be an example specific to the British Army - I was thinking of the US drone strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan.

Some of those are legitimate strikes others more dubious also a lot of Taliban inspired hate against them as they work and the Taliban have no counter to them. Supposedly lots of criteria are gone through before weapons are fired and they have tables to work out how much collateral damage is acceptable.
So Bin Laden might have been be worth an orphanage while a low level commander is not even worth the rest of his family.