Britain's secret terror force. BBC1 now..

[johnmc]

The difference between the IRA and the British Army in NI, was that the army killed civilians by mistake. They were going after the terrorists. The IRA on the hand killed indiscriminately.

You believe that as your right. I have a different opinion. But I don't want to argue about that as I have no proof to support my argument other than possibly the Savile enquiry (not that one before anyone starts)

But you have to agree the British army acted outside of their remit on many occasions whether you agree with their motives or not.

You don't think the IRA killed indiscriminately, or you think the army deliberately murdered civilians just for the sake of it ? or both ?

As I'm sure you are aware the Irish conflict involved the deaths of civilians on both sides, and the deaths of civilians were often tit for tat. In these threads you often read about the IRA causing civilians deaths but not UDA or UVF for example. These terrorist groups killed civilians. I'm not arguing against that as there obviously no argument there.

I'm talking about the army. Maybe not "for the sake of it" as you say but get it done and ask questions later. As shown in numerous occasions where evidence is either planted or destroyed.

 

[johnmc]

The difference between the IRA and the British Army in NI, was that the army killed civilians by mistake. They were going after the terrorists. The IRA on the hand killed indiscriminately.

You believe that as your right. I have a different opinion. But I don't want to argue about that as I have no proof to support my argument other than possibly the Savile enquiry (not that one before anyone starts)

But you have to agree the British army acted outside of their remit on many occasions whether you agree with their motives or not.

The British army certainly weren't whiter than white and them shooting suspicious looking civilians was completely wrong without them being proven to have been connected to the IRA.

However they did this not to take risks, they were fighting in a gorilla war against cowards and often they'd fire at someone they suspected to be the enemy. The IRA purposely bombed schools and pedestrian areas rather than go after the army or government, that is as low as it gets.

Granted. This isn't me defending any terrorist group.

But should the army, in your eyes, be allowed to open fire on a suspected terrorist on a whim

My point, which maybe I'm not putting across very well, is the the defence used is often that the terrorists would have done the same to them if they had the chance isn't a valid one. In my eyes anyway. Surely one group are called terrorists as they do have a low standard of morals that the army are trying eradicate?

 

[Shadz69]

far from helping to bring about an end to the Troubles (as was suggested at the end of the documentary), they actually prolonged them!

Bloody hell, that's controversial. You mean the presence of British forces in Northern Ireland made things worse? Tin hat time.

In my opinion two major events galvanised support for nationalist paramilitary groups more than anything else..Bloody Sunday and the introduction of internment.Internment could have been effective if the British had held only terrorists but there were so many innocents held and tortured it truly beggars belief,membership of the GAA was enough for some to be held.

 

[scotty123]

Fair enough if that's your opinion, you are of course fully entitled to it.

I personally would prefer to live in a free, democratic society where EVERYONE lives under the rule of law.

How many tales of murder and uber-cowardice are we going to find out in years to come about our "brave British boys" in Afghanistan, Iraq etc..? My guess is dozens and dozens.

It's not just the cold blooded murder of civilians that gets to me, you kind of expect that from the British army, it's the fucking arrogance of these shithouses, as they know full well they are untouchable.

I hope and prey (and believe) that one day these bastards will spend years In a cold, dark prison. Hopefully in the country where they committed their murders.

-- Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:13 pm --



Ahhh the old "if you don't like it live elsewhere" argument. Brilliant mate, simply brilliant.

There was a fella in Germany in the 30's used to think like that. I forget his name, but he had a funny moustache and a kind of greasy flick haircut. His soldiers did similar things. Like ours.

You utter utter despicable hand wringing excuse of a human being, i for one will not let you get away with comparing the soldiers of the British Army to Hitlers soldiers, you have insulted many of my family and quite a few of my friends who have served loyally and with bravery all over the world, if the mods do their jobs properly you should be removed from this site without haste

My Dad fought in the British Army in WWII and in Palestine but that did not stop him from criticising the military when he though that they deserved criticism. The whole point about democracy is that you ought to be able to hold the establishment to account.

Everyone i know who served in the military and that includes my Dad who served in the Royal Navy during WW2 and beyond have criticised the military in some way or another, the British Military has never been whiter than white but which Military isnt, but i am not having that military compared to Hitlers, its insulting my Dad and his two brothers memories

 

[johnmc]

far from helping to bring about an end to the Troubles (as was suggested at the end of the documentary), they actually prolonged them!

Bloody hell, that's controversial. You mean the presence of British forces in Northern Ireland made things worse? Tin hat time.

In my opinion two major events galvanised support for nationalist paramilitary groups more than anything else..Bloody Sunday and the introduction of internment.Internment could have been effective if the British had held only terrorists but there were so many innocents held and tortured it truly beggars belief,membership of the GAA was enough for some to be held.

Add Bobby Sands in there as well.

 

[Bilboblue]

You believe that as your right. I have a different opinion. But I don't want to argue about that as I have no proof to support my argument other than possibly the Savile enquiry (not that one before anyone starts)

But you have to agree the British army acted outside of their remit on many occasions whether you agree with their motives or not.

You don't think the IRA killed indiscriminately, or you think the army deliberately murdered civilians just for the sake of it ? or both ?

As I'm sure you are aware the Irish conflict involved the deaths of civilians on both sides, and the deaths of civilians were often tit for tat. In these threads you often read about the IRA causing civilians deaths but not UDA or UVF for example. These terrorist groups killed civilians. I'm not arguing against that as there obviously no argument there.

I'm talking about the army. Maybe not "for the sake of it" as you say but get it done and ask questions later. As shown in numerous occasions where evidence is either planted or destroyed.

The UDA and UVF were responsible for a good many civilian deaths, a lot of which were not exactly 'real' civvies, but part of the IRA network, and some of their details were passed on from the British Military, I suppose to save them getting their own hands dirty from extra-judicial killings.

However, the amount the IRA murdered, was far and away more than both those organisations put together.

 

[Shadz69]

Bloody hell, that's controversial. You mean the presence of British forces in Northern Ireland made things worse? Tin hat time.

In my opinion two major events galvanised support for nationalist paramilitary groups more than anything else..Bloody Sunday and the introduction of internment.Internment could have been effective if the British had held only terrorists but there were so many innocents held and tortured it truly beggars belief,membership of the GAA was enough for some to be held.

Add Bobby Sands in there as well.

Maybe so John although on a personal note it was an admirable and brave stance taken by Thatcher not to cave concerning the hunger strikes.

 

[johnmc]

In my opinion two major events galvanised support for nationalist paramilitary groups more than anything else..Bloody Sunday and the introduction of internment.Internment could have been effective if the British had held only terrorists but there were so many innocents held and tortured it truly beggars belief,membership of the GAA was enough for some to be held.

Add Bobby Sands in there as well.

Maybe so John although on a personal note it was an admirable and brave stance taken by Thatcher not to cave concerning the hunger strikes.

I'm talking as a incident that increased support for the IRA not the rights and wrongs of the political decision.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

BBC in bashing British Army shocker, us who are old enough will remember this twattish organisation have been doing it for 40 odd years, not watched it because i have heard it all before over N.I. let me guess the Parachute Regiment have been singled out as the biggest bunch of thugs, terrorists, child killers, masked undercover bank robbers, gun runners, drug dealers, drunkard buggerers ever to wear a British Army uniform, its a load of bollox

Very close,the thread starter has now tagged them as being like Nazi soldiers & yes he has mentioned ,Afghanistan,Iraq,etc...........and NO i didnt ask who the etc are.
99%of the real footage showed the atrocities commited by the IRA but he seems to have missed that part of the prog.

The man (kazzydeyna) is obviously wound up about something.

Kazzy, you mentioned about wanting to live in a free society, what about all the innocent victims from IRA bombs, or kneecapping and all the other shit that went with it?

They did a lot of bad stuff, but I have no doubt a lot of the so-called innocents, would have been involved with the IRA in some form.

Try reading the book about the guy infiltrated the IRA and passed on info (50 Dead Men Walking?) and see how wider they cast their net, and the stuff they used to do.

Hi mate,

Yes I am wound up about this. And to address your point about IRA atrocities, of course that is deplorable, and the people responsible should be held accountable under the law.

I would say though, and I appreciate that this won't be popular, if a foreign power occupies your country , as a citizen of that country you have the right (I would personally say it is a duty) to fight back using whatever means are available. That doesn't excuse any IRA attacks on civilians, which were equally deplorable, but in my eyes it most certainly does excuse any Provo attacks on the occupying power. Nobody seriously believes the French resistance were terrorists in WW2.

What winds me up though is that as a professional military it is incumbent on us to act at all times within the law.

Sending the MRF into housing estates to kill innocent bystanders for the crime of being there is a cowardly despicable act and the scum that did it, and their superiors, should, indeed must, pay for it under the law. No excuses.

Just as a person convicted of blowing up a pub with innocent civilians inside should too.

Can any sane person watch that programme and truthfully claim they didn't feel sick and ashamed?

 

[Anonymous]

You believe that as your right. I have a different opinion. But I don't want to argue about that as I have no proof to support my argument other than possibly the Savile enquiry (not that one before anyone starts)

But you have to agree the British army acted outside of their remit on many occasions whether you agree with their motives or not.

The British army certainly weren't whiter than white and them shooting suspicious looking civilians was completely wrong without them being proven to have been connected to the IRA.

However they did this not to take risks, they were fighting in a gorilla war against cowards and often they'd fire at someone they suspected to be the enemy. The IRA purposely bombed schools and pedestrian areas rather than go after the army or government, that is as low as it gets.

Granted. This isn't me defending any terrorist group.

But should the army, in your eyes, be allowed to open fire on a suspected terrorist on a whim

My point, which maybe I'm not putting across very well, is the the defence used is often that the terrorists would have done the same to them if they had the chance isn't a valid one. In my eyes anyway. Surely one group are called terrorists as they do have a low standard of morals that the army are trying eradicate?

Every time somebody in a British army uniform commits an atrocity they smear the good work the other 99.9999% do. The few that do, are as bad as any terrorist, however the whole of the IRA were terrorists so there's no comparison.